The receipt of a restaurant reveals that the client ordered several alcoholic drinks. After a few hours the same customer has been injured in a fatal accident. The receipt may be of value to an attorney who is seeking to determine the potential liability of a drunken shop. It’s not necessarily a proof of whether the restaurant served someone who was clearly drunk, or the employees did not follow rules. It’s possible that the evidence is more convincing when you consider what happened in between drink orders.
To understand this sequence, it is necessary to examine the alcohol service as a hospitality process and not simply count beverages at the end of an event.
A receipt is a record of a purchase but not the state of a customer
Records from the point of sale can show when transactions occurred, what beverages were purchased and the costs applied to a bill.
The receipt will not show the customer’s behavior when the beverage was ordered. The receipt might not show the person who consumed each drink when drinks were shared, or what the bartender saw.
An experienced Expert Witness can help attorneys interpret these records alongside surveillance footage, employee statements, and other available evidence. The aim is to reconstruct the sequence of service without assuming each purchase tells the whole story.
What can employees actually see?
The most important issue in disputes involving alcohol-related services is whether the staff had recognizable reasons to believe that a customer was drunk. Some of the relevant indicators could be impaired coordination, strange speaking, difficulty maintaining equilibrium, or observable behavioral changes.
These indicators need context. A single incident in surveillance footage could be unrelated to alcohol. Investigators should also look at the quality of the video position of the employee and camera angles.
Preston Rideout brings experience as bartender, manager of the bar, nightclub general manager, and director of bar operations to these assessments. The operational knowledge he has gained helps him link recorded evidence to the obligations and limitations of employees working in bustling hospitality establishments.
Written Training Doesn’t Always Describe Real Practice
In all alcohol-related investigation inquiries, questions are asked regarding the employee’s preparation. Did the establishment provide server-seller training? Did the establishment provide training to employees to detect signs of intoxication? Management has explained to employees the process to refuse additional service?
While these are questions that are vital for the Responsible Alcohol Service (RACS), reviewing just training certificates might not be enough to address them.
It is possible for a venue to have comprehensive policies however, they may not always follow the policies. On the other hand, employees may follow established practices in service even though the final outcome was devastating.
An examination of the operational elements includes the training materials, testimonies of employees supervision by management and incidents that are documented. The difference between a policy’s existence and its actual implementation can be vital for both defense and plaintiff counsel.
Timeline can reveal important questions
Think about a client being served by several bartenders the same time during a busy time. It is possible that the initial employee was observing a typical behavior. Another bartender could have served a second drink after a shift change. A manager could have intervened in the future.
If you don’t reconstruct the timeline, those decisions can appear to be a continuous action of service. When looking through transaction records and staffing plans, as well as video surveillance and incident reports it is helpful to determine who was aware of what, and at what time. It’s best to find out if there are any missing records or footage, instead of speculating.
Lawful Liability and Industry Practice are Different Questions
Hospitality experts can describe accepted operating procedures and assess whether the conduct of a place was in line with them.
The court still has the task of determining whether a person is legally responsible. The laws regarding alcohol shops vary from state to state as do the rules within which they may be brought into court.
Rideout Hospitality Consulting assists plaintiff and defendant attorneys across the country with case review, analysis of operations, written opinions, and depositions. Its work includes alcohol-service decision making, staff training, managerial practices, and other related hospitality operations.
The most thorough analysis clarifies what the evidence cannot show
The seriousness of an alcohol-related incident cannot be a conclusive indicator of the previous circumstances.
Lawyers must be able to identify the documents that are accessible and their limitations as well as the way employees would have been expected to behave in situation.
An in-depth analysis of hospitality can separate the actions that are documented from assumptions and provides a clear explanation of where the hotel’s practices were in line with or diverged from the accepted norms. The courts will then be able to judge the actual events rather than just relying on the lessons they have learned.