One
day this summer I sat in on a deposition of a bar owner in liquor liability
civil case. The matter hinged on whether the plaintiff could show that the
liquor licensee, rather the bartender on-duty had acted negligently in
over-serving a guest who subsequently caused an accident that resulted in
injuries to innocent third parties.
I
squirmed in my seat as the plaintiff's attorney examined the restaurant owner
about his bar's drink pricing, portion sizes and happy hour promotions. Even
the staff's uniforms came into question. By the time the lawyer had finished
grilling him about the risks inherent serving alcohol in a crowded, under-staffed
bar, the guy was nearly unintelligible. In the end the owner admitted that he
would have no way of knowing whether the person had been over-served alcohol or
not. The admission is all it took to sink the guy.
As society continues tightening restrictions on the
consumption of alcohol, on-premise operators need to reevaluate their pouring
policies from a risk/reward perspective. Some of the practices permitted behind
the bar in the past are now outdated and fraught with liability.
For
example, the time has come to prohibit the service of "doubles." Any way
you look at it, doubles are more than twice as potent as a regularly prepared
drink. Compounding the problem is that people typically consume doubles at
about the same rate as they do regularly prepared drinks, which increases the
rate the alcohol is absorbed in bloodstream by a factor of two.
Now
where is it written that beverage operators have to serve doubles? When a guest
does request a double, a bartender need only respond that house policy now
prohibits serving doubles, and then inquire if he or she would care for a
regularly prepared drink.
Equally
outdated is the practice of giving bartenders and servers a post-shift drink or
allowing employees to drink at the bar when off-duty. It will prevent the
bartenders from over-pouring, undercharging, or simply giving away free drinks
to their co-workers, all natural temptations when serving alcohol to people
with whom they work. The prohibition also reduces the possibility of employees
becoming intoxicated at work, or leaving under the influence.
Another
problematic area involves how spirits are portioned for drink making. In the
United States, free pouring remains the most popular measuring technique with
owners and bartenders alike. It involves dispensing liquor without the use of
jiggers, relying rather on a bartender's internal count or cadence to estimate
the rate of flow. Free pouring is stylish, highly efficient, and requires
minimal training for bartenders to attain proficiency.
From
a liability standpoint though, free pouring is the riskiest and costliest
measuring technique an operator can institute. The method makes it easy for
bartenders to inadvertently or purposely over-portion liquor into drinks, a
costly practice that both places the public at risk and greatly increases an
operator's exposure to alcohol-related liability.
Flair
bartending notwithstanding, liquor control systems are a foreshadowing
technology, a sign of things to come. Between the growing concern over DWI
issues and steadily rising liquor costs, strict liquor control will more likely
be the standard than the exception, and may even someday become a licensing
requirement.
Lastly,
complimentary drinks are a time-honored means of acknowledging regulars and
contributing to the joy of special occasions, such as guests' birthdays and
anniversaries. Doing away with the tradition would be as wrong as mandating the
use of Dixie cups.
On
the other hand, indiscriminately doling out free cocktails suggests an
operation run amuck. Excessive comping is a costly practice that squashes sales
and gratuities, spikes pour cost, and increases exposure to liability. Make
sure that your policies clearly and accurately delineate the company's position
regarding complimentary drinks. Of course, the savvy thing to do is review the
policies before they become an issue and read openly in court.
Leave a comment