A receipt from a restaurant shows that the customer ordered multiple alcoholic drinks. Hours later, that customer is in the middle of a traffic accident. The receipt may be of value to an attorney looking into the possibility of liability for a Dramshop. It’s not necessarily a proof of whether the restaurant served a person who clearly drunk, or if employees didn’t follow procedures. The more revealing evidence may depend on what transpired between those drink orders.
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 purchase and not the actual condition of a customer
The record of the point-of-sale can be used to determine the date the transaction took place, which beverages were purchased and what charges are assigned to a tab.
The receipt does not reflect how the customer behaved when the drinks were ordered. It is not able to determine the person who consumed each drink, whether drinks were shared, or even what the bartender was watching.
A professional witness can aid attorneys in interpreting these documents in conjunction with surveillance footage and employee statements. The goal is to retrace the service flow without thinking that every purchase tells the entire story.
What is the perception of employees in real-life?
A central question in many alcohol-related disputes is whether employees could have a reason to believe a patron was intoxicated. Some of the relevant indicators could be impairment in coordination, abnormal speech and a difficulty in maintaining equilibrium or noticeable behavioral changes.
However, these indicators require some context. A single incident captured in surveillance footage may have a reason that isn’t related to alcohol consumption. Investigators should look at the camera’s angle, the recording quality location of employees, and the degree to which an incident was visible to staff.
Preston Rideout’s background as a seasoned bartender manager of a bar as well as general manager of the nightclub, and director of operations for bars is reflected in these evaluations. His experience in the operational field helps him link documented evidence with the obligations of employees working in bustling hospitality establishments.
Written Training Doesn’t Always Describe Real Practice
The majority of investigations into alcohol-related service focus on employee preparation. Did the establishment provide server-seller instruction? Did the establishment educate employees to detect signs of intoxication? Did management provide the procedure for refusing to provide additional services?
These questions are central to Responsible alcohol service service, but reviewing training certificates alone may not answer them.
The establishment may have policies in place but fail to follow them consistently. In the other case employees may have followed the guidelines even if the incident was tragic.
An operational review considers documents for training, testimony from employees as well as management oversight and the actions that were documented during the incident. The difference between the existence of a policy and its actual implementation can be important to both plaintiff and defense counsel.
Timeline can help answer important issues
Imagine a client being served drinks by various bartenders in a busy evening. It is possible that the initial employee observed a normal behaviour. Following a shift change an additional employee could serve a second drink. A manager could intervene later.
It is possible to make these choices appear to be a single continuous action without reconstructing the time line. Retrospectively reviewing personnel schedules, transaction records surveillance footage, incident reports together can aid in determining who was aware of what and when. It is better to determine whether there’s any missing files or videos, rather than speculating.
Lawful Liability and Industry Practice are Different Questions
Hospitality experts can provide an explanation of accepted operating practices and evaluate whether the actions of a hotel were in accordance to them.
The court is still the responsibility of determining legal liability. The laws governing alcohol shops differ from state to, as do the conditions under which they may be accused of a crime.
Rideout Hospitality Consulting provides support to plaintiffs and defense attorneys in the United States through review of cases, operational analysis as well as written opinions and trial testimony, depositions and other types of evidence. Its services address alcohol-related issues, staff training, management practices, and other hospitality-related operations.
The strongest analysis accounts for what the Evidence cannot show
Alcohol-related events can have serious effects, but their seriousness cannot be determined by all the evidence.
Attorneys must be aware of the available records, the limitations of those records, and the way employees were expected to operate under the circumstances.
An exhaustive analysis of hospitality practices will discern between documented and preconceived behaviours and show what practices at the venue are in line with or differ from the accepted norms. This distinction can help courts assess what actually happened rather than solely relying on what was discovered in the aftermath.