A receipt in a restaurant shows a customer who has ordered several drinks of alcohol. The customer was involved in a fatal car crash a few hours after the incident. An attorney examining potential dram shop liability the receipt is crucial. The receipt is not required to prove that the restaurant provided a clearly drunk patron or that employees did not comply with the appropriate procedures. It’s possible that the evidence is more persuasive by looking at what transpired between orders for drinks.
In order to understand the sequence, you must look at the alcohol service as part of a hospitality business. It is not possible to record drinks following an incident.
A receipt is an evidence of a sale and not a stipulation of the customer
The point-of-sale record is used to identify when the transaction took place, what drinks were bought and the charges are assigned to the tab.
But, receipts generally cannot show how a customer was acting at the time drinking was offered. It is not able to determine who drank each beverage and whether or not drinks were shared, or what the bartender was watching.
A skilled Expert Witness will assist lawyers in understanding these documents in conjunction with surveillance footage, employee testimony, and other available evidence. The objective is to reconstruct the service sequence without assuming that each purchase will tell the whole story.
What can employees actually see?
In a number of disputes concerning alcohol service, the most important issue is whether staff was able to establish that a customer was drunk. These could be evidence of impairment in coordination, abnormal speech, difficulty maintaining equilibrium, or noticeable behavioral changes.
Yet these indicators require the context. One incident recorded on surveillance footage may have explanations unrelated to alcohol consumption. Investigators should be aware of the camera’s angle, the quality of recording location of employees, and the extent to which a particular behaviour was apparent to employees.
Preston Rideout brings experience as a bartender, bar manager, nightclub general manager, and director of bar operations to these evaluations. His experience in operations helps him link recorded evidence to the responsibilities and limitations of employees who work in hectic hospitality establishments.
Written Training Doesn’t Always Describe Real Practice
The majority of investigations into alcohol-related service are focused on preparation of employees. Did there exist any training programs for the server-sellers? Did the establishment train employees to identify signs of intoxication? Did management provide ways to deny additional service?
The answer to these questions could be in the certificates of training however, they aren’t sufficient.
The facility may have rules implemented, but fail to follow them consistently. In the opposite situation, an employee may be following the standards of service, even though it was a tragedy.
A review of the operational aspects of the policy includes training materials, employee testimonies as well as management oversight and the actions that were documented in the event. It is essential for attorneys representing the plaintiffs and defense to differentiate between the existence of the policy and its application.
Timeline can help answer important information that can answer important
Imagine a customer being served drinks by various bartenders on a busy evening. It is possible that the initial employee observed a normal behaviour. Following a shift change an additional employee could have served an additional beverage. A manager could intervene later.
Without reconstructing the timeline the decisions could seem to be one continuous act of service. When looking through transaction records, staffing plans, incidents and surveillance footage it is helpful to determine who was aware of what and the time. It’s better to pinpoint missing footage or incomplete documents than relying on speculative speculation.
Industry Practice and Legal Liability Are Different Questions
Hospitality professionals can discuss accepted operational practices and determine if the actions of a hotel were in accordance to them.
They don’t replace the courts’ responsibility to determine the legal responsibility. There are distinct laws in each state concerning the legal liability of alcohol retailers.
Rideout Hospitality Consulting assists plaintiff and defendant attorneys across the country through review of the case, analysis of operations, written opinions, and depositions. Its activities include alcohol-related decision making, staff training managing practices, as well as any other relevant hospitality operations.
The most robust analyses can provide a reason for what the evidence doesn’t demonstrate.
The severity of an alcohol-related incident is not able to decide the truth of all previous information.
The attorney must know the information available to him along with their limitations, as well as the expectations of employees in the conditions.
An in-depth analysis of hospitality will differentiate documented and accepted behavior patterns and clarify how the practices of the establishment are in line with or differ from the accepted norms. That distinction helps courts evaluate what actually transpired instead of relying on what became known in the aftermath.