The receipt of a restaurant indicates that the customer ordered multiple alcohol-based drinks. Hours later, that customer was involved in a major traffic collision. The receipt may be of value to an attorney who is looking into the possibility of liability for the victim of a drunken shop. It’s not a sure way to determine if the restaurant served a customer who clearly drunk or whether employees were not following the rules. There’s a chance that the evidence will be more convincing if you look at the actions that took place between drinks.

Understanding that sequence requires examining the alcohol industry as a hospitality business, not just taking note of the number of drinks consumed after an incident.

Receipts are evidence of a sale not a customer’s condition

Documents at the time of sale can reveal when transactions took place, what drinks were purchased and the charges included in a bill.

The receipt will not show the manner in which the drink was ordered. It’s not always clear who was drinking each drink, whether drinks were shared, nor what an employee of the bar observed.

An experienced Expert Witness can help attorneys interpret these records alongside surveillance footage, employee statements, and other available evidence. The goal is to reconstruct service sequences without believing that each purchase is the whole story.

What are the things employees can observe in the real world?

The central question in most disputes over alcohol-related service is whether staff could have had the basis to conclude that the customer was intoxicated. These could include impairment in coordination, speech that is unusual or balance issues, or observable changes in behavior.

But these indicators need some context. A single act recorded in surveillance footage may have a reason that isn’t related to alcohol consumption. Investigators must also look at camera angles, recording quality position of employees and whether particular behavior would be seen by the employees.

Preston Rideout has experience as manager of a nightclub, bar manager, director of bar operations and bartender. His experience in the operational field permits him to link recorded evidence and the responsibilities of employees in busy hospitality settings.

Written Training Doesn’t Always Describe Real Practice

The majority of investigations into alcohol-related service concentrate on preparation for employees. Does the establishment offer employee training in the area of seller-server? Did the establishment educate employees to identify signs of intoxication? Did management outline how to refuse additional service?

The answers to these questions can be found in the certificates of training but they’re not sufficient.

It is possible for a venue to have policies that are detailed, but not necessarily implement them. In contrast the employee could have followed service standards even if the incident was tragic.

An operational review will look at training materials, employee testimony as well as management oversight and any actions that were documented in the incident. Both defense and plaintiff attorneys can benefit from a clear distinction between the existence of a policy and its actual execution.

The Timeline often provides the key Questions

Consider a client who is served by several bartenders at the same time during a busy time. The first employee may have observed ordinary behavior. Another bartender could have served a second drink after an alteration in shift. The manager could have intervened later.

The decision-making process could be seen as an ongoing process if the timeline is not recreated. Examining the transaction records, staffing schedules video surveillance footage, incident reports together can help identify who was in charge and when. Incomplete or missing footage should also be identified rather than replaced with speculation.

Industry Practice and legal Liability are two distinct issues

Hospitality experts can explain recognized operating procedures and assess whether the behavior of a particular venue was consistent with them.

They do not substitute for a court’s ability to determine the legal obligation. The laws regarding alcohol shops differ from state-to-state as do the conditions within which they may be sued.

Rideout Hospitality Consulting supports plaintiff and defense lawyers across the country through case reviews, operational analysis, depositions, written opinions, as well as trial testimony. The company’s work focuses on alcohol-related decisions as well as staff training, management methods, and other pertinent hospitality operations.

The most thorough analyses can help explain what the evidence does not demonstrate.

The severity of an alcohol-related incident is not able to be a conclusive indicator of the previous circumstances.

Lawyers must be able to identify the documents that are available and their limitations as well as the way employees should have been required to act under the specific circumstances.

A thorough hospitality analysis will differentiate documented and preconceived behaviours and show which practices of the place differ from established standards. This distinction allows courts to determine what happened instead of using only the information found after the fact.