A receipt from a restaurant shows that a patron ordered several alcoholic beverages. A few hours later, the customer was involved in a major traffic accident. The receipt can be relevant to an attorney who is researching potential liability for an alleged drunken shop. However, it isn’t a guarantee whether the establishment served an obviously intoxicated person or if the employees failed to follow the correct procedures. More revealing evidence might relate to what transpired between the drinks ordered.
To understand the sequence, you must take a look at the alcohol services as part of a real hospitality operation. It is not enough to simply record drinks following an incident.
A receipt is an evidence of a transaction, not a stipulation of the buyer
Point-of-sale data can be used to determine the time and date of transactions, the beverages were bought, and how the charges were allocated to the tab.
But, receipts generally cannot show how a customer behaved when drinking was offered. The receipt may not reveal the person who consumed each drink when drinks were served in a shared manner, and the manner in which the bartender viewed it.
An expert witness can help attorneys with the interpretation of these documents in conjunction with video surveillance and employee statements. It is essential to reconstruct the order of service, without presuming that every purchase tells the entire story.
What are the things employees can actually see?
In a number of disputes concerning alcohol-related services, the primary concern is whether or not the staff had a reason to suspect that a person was drunk. The relevant observations include impaired speech or coordination problems, difficulty maintaining balance or shifts in behavior.
But these indicators require contextualization. The actions captured on video surveillance might not be a result of alcohol. Investigators also need to consider how the recording is done as well as the positions of employees and camera angles.
Preston Rideout’s background as an experienced bartender and bar manager general manager at nightclubs, and director for bar operations can be seen in these evaluations. His background in operation helps connect documented evidence to the responsibilities and limitations of staff working in fast-paced hospitality environments.
Written Training Doesn’t Always Describe Real Practice
Most alcohol-service investigations involve questions about employee preparation. Does the establishment provide seller-server training to its employees? Did the establishment educate employees to detect signs of intoxication? Did management explain how to refuse additional service?
These questions are central to Responsible alcohol service service, but reviewing training certificates alone may not answer them.
It can be possible for a facility to have specific policies but not consistently implement them. Employees may have adhered to recognized service practices even if the final outcome was tragic.
A review of operations takes into account documents for training and the testimony of employees. The review also examines management oversight as well as any actions that are documented during the incident. Defense attorneys and plaintiffs can benefit from a clear distinction between the existence of the policy and its actual implementation.
Timeline can answer crucial issues
Consider a patron who receives drinks from different bartenders during a crowded evening. It’s possible that the first employee was observing a typical behavior. After a change of shift the second employee might serve a second drink. Managers could intervene later.
It’s possible to make these choices appear to be one continuous act of service without retracing the timeline. By examining all the relevant information such as transaction records and staffing schedules, as well as surveillance footage and an incident report together, can clarify who was aware of what and when. Missing footage or incomplete records should also be identified rather than replaced with speculation.
The legal liability issues and industry practice are different.
Hospitality professionals can discuss accepted operating practices and evaluate whether the conduct of a place was in line with them.
These laws don’t replace a court’s ability to determine the legal responsibilities. There are various laws for each state on the legal liability of retailers selling alcohol.
Rideout Hospitality Consulting supports plaintiff and defense lawyers throughout the world by conducting case review, operational analysis, written opinions, depositions, as well as trial testimony. Its services focus on alcohol-related choices and training for staff.
The strongest analysis accounts for what the Evidence cannot show
The severity of an alcohol-related accident cannot be used to determine the validity of previous events.
Lawyers need to be able discern the types of documents available, and the limits they have, as well as how employees were expected to act in given circumstances.
A hospitality analysis can be a thorough method to separate assumptions from documented actions and to determine if the venue’s practices were in line to accepted norms or not. The courts then have the ability to evaluate the actual events rather than just relying on the lessons they have learned.