A receipt in the restaurant shows a patron who has ordered several drinks of alcohol. The next day, that person is involved in a serious traffic accident. An attorney examining potential dram shop liability, the receipt is relevant. It does not have to prove that the restaurant served a clearly drunk client or that the employees failed to adhere to the proper procedure. The most revealing evidence could depend on what transpired between those drinks ordered.
Understanding this sequence requires studying the alcohol industry as a hospitality service, not just taking note of the number of drinks consumed after an incident.
A receipt is a record of a transaction, not a requirement of the purchaser.
The record at the point of sale can be used to determine the date the transaction occurred, what beverages were purchased and what charges are allocated to a tab.
A receipt is not able to reveal what the client’s behavior was when served an alcohol drink. It’s not always clear who consumed each beverage as well as whether drinks were shared or not, or even what the bartender saw.
An experienced Expert Witness can help attorneys interpret these records alongside surveillance footage, employee statements, and other available evidence. It is essential to reconstruct the process of service, but not thinking that every purchase will be the whole story.
What are the things employees can actually see?
The main issue in disputes involving alcohol-related services is whether the staff have reasonable grounds to believe that the client was drunk. Some of the signs that could be relevant are impaired coordination or speech inability to maintain balance, or changes in behavior.
These indicators need to be contextualized. A single incident captured on surveillance footage could provide an explanation that is not connected to drinking alcohol. Investigators should look at the camera’s angle, the recording quality, employee position, and the degree to which an incident was visible to staff.
Preston Rideout brings experience as a bartender, bar manager and nightclub general manager as well as director of bar operations to these evaluations. The operational knowledge he has gained helps him make connections between the responsibilities and limitations for employees who work in hectic hospitality environments.
Written Training Doesn’t Always Describe Real Practice
The majority of alcohol-related investigations revolve around inquiries about preparation of employees. Did you receive any instruction for the server-sellers? Did the establishment instruct employees to identify signs of intoxication? Management has explained to employees the procedure to refuse additional service?
While these questions are important for the Responsible Alcohol Service (RACS), reviewing only the training certificates may not be enough to address them.
The venue may have policies that are in place, but they fail to follow them consistently. On the other hand, employees may have followed established service standards even though the final outcome was tragic.
An operational review will look at training materials, employee testimony supervision by management, as well as the actions that were documented during the incident. It is important for both the defense and plaintiffs to discern between the existence of policy and its implementation.
The Timeline often provides the key Questions
Imagine a client being served drinks by different bartenders on a busy evening. The bartender who was first on the scene may have seen a typical behavior. After a shift change, the bartender in question may have served a different drink. The manager may intervened following the shift change.
Without reconstructing the timeline that is the case, these decisions could appear to be one continuous act of service. Looking over personnel schedules, transaction records as well as surveillance footage and incident reports can aid in determining who was aware of what and when. It is better to identify any missing footage or uncomplete reports than relying on speculative speculation.
The issues surrounding legal liability and industrial practice are two different issues.
Hospitality experts can provide an explanation of accepted operating guidelines and judge if a venue’s conduct was consistent with these practices.
They do not take away the court’s responsibility to determine the legal responsibility. The laws governing alcohol shops differ from state to as do the rules that they can be sued.
Rideout Hospitality Consulting assists plaintiff and defendant attorneys across the country through reviewing cases, analyzing operations, writing opinions and depositions. The company’s work focuses on alcohol-related decisions, staff training, management methods, and other relevant hospitality operations.
The most rigorous analyses are able to explain what the evidence does not demonstrate.
The gravity of an alcohol-related incident cannot decide the truth of all previous information.
Attorneys must understand the available records, the limits of the records and what employees were expected of them to work under the circumstances.
A thorough analysis of hospitality can distinguish documented actions from assumed behaviours and explain what practices at the venue are aligned or deviated from established standards. This distinction allows courts to evaluate the events that actually occurred rather than solely relying on the information that was released following the fact.