Logo of The Dram Shop Expert, featuring bold typography and a classic design, emphasizing expertise in dram shop laws and regulations.
  • Retained by Plaintiff and Defense Counsel Nationwide Dram Shop & Bar Security Litigation

Every Element of Your Case Requires an Expert Who Has Actually Run These Venues.

  • By Ryan Dahlstrom
  • Consulting and Testifying Expert Witness, Hospitality and Entertainment Industry
  • www.TheDramShopExpert.com
Dram shop and bar security cases turn on operational facts that only someone who has actually managed these environments can assess credibly. With over 35 years of hands-on experience in hospitality and nightlife operations, I provide objective, well-grounded expert opinions for both plaintiff and defense counsel. My opinion follows the facts of the case. Where the evidence supports liability, I can articulate exactly how the operational failures occurred. Where it does not, I can explain precisely why the conduct met or exceeded the applicable standard of care.
Retained by Both Sides

Objective Operational Analysis Across Every Cause of Action

The causes of action in dram shop and bar security litigation are direct allegations about how a licensed establishment did or did not operate responsibly. Each of them requires an expert who can assess the defendant’s actual conduct against the industry standard from the inside, not from a textbook. Whether you represent the plaintiff or the defense, the operative question is the same: did this establishment operate the way a reasonable operator in this industry is required to operate? I have the background to answer that question objectively and to defend that opinion under cross-examination.

My retention by both plaintiff and defense counsel is not incidental. It reflects the fact that credible expert testimony in this field has to be grounded in the operational facts of the specific case, not in a predetermined conclusion. Attorneys on both sides retain me because they know my opinion will hold up.

Dram Shop Liability / Negligent Service of Alcohol
I assess whether the beverage service practices, training protocols, and staff conduct on the date in question met or fell below the applicable standard of care for a licensed establishment.
Negligence / Common Law Negligence
I evaluate the operational conduct of the establishment against the standard of what a reasonable operator in this industry would have done under the same or similar circumstances.
Negligent Security / Premises Liability
I assess staffing levels, door staff training, use of force protocols, and incident response procedures against the industry standard for venues of comparable type, volume, and risk profile.
Negligent Hiring, Retention, Training, and Supervision
I evaluate the establishment’s hiring criteria, onboarding procedures, training documentation, and supervisory practices to determine whether they reflected the standard expected of a competent operator.
Respondeat Superior / Vicarious Liability
I assess whether the conduct of agents, servants, and employees fell within the scope of their employment and whether the employer’s operational practices and oversight were adequate.
Gross Negligence / Punitive Damages
I provide the operational context necessary to assess whether the conduct at issue reflects a single incident or a pattern of indifference to patron safety that the evidence will either support or undermine.
Negligence Per Se
I assess alleged statutory violations involving service to minors or visibly intoxicated persons within the full operational context of how the establishment was managed and staffed.
Premises Liability / Invitee Protection
I evaluate whether the establishment took reasonable steps to protect invitees from foreseeable risks based on the operational conditions, incident history, and security posture of the venue.
Duty and Breach

Translating the Legal Standard of Care Into Operational Terms That Hold Up at Trial

The duty allegations in dram shop and bar security complaints, including the duty to exercise reasonable care, the duty not to sell or furnish alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person, and the duty to hire, train, and supervise competent employees, are written in statutory and common law language. What they require in practice is an expert who can translate each of those duties into the day-to-day operational reality of how licensed venues are actually run and then assess objectively whether the defendant’s conduct met that standard.

The knew or should have known standard is the most consequential phrase in any breach analysis. For plaintiff counsel, it means establishing what a trained employee was required to observe and what action their training required. For defense counsel, it means examining whether the evidence actually supports constructive knowledge, or whether the plaintiff is asking the jury to impute awareness that the circumstances did not reasonably require. I can assess that question objectively from an operational standpoint and provide an opinion that reflects what the evidence actually shows.

Why Operational Experience Matters
An expert who has managed bartenders, written the training programs, and run the door at comparable venues can speak to the standard of care from direct experience. That foundation is far more durable under cross-examination than testimony derived from academic study alone.

The same dual-sided analysis applies to allegations that an establishment failed to stop service despite clear signs of intoxication, or failed to provide adequate security, or failed to intervene when a confrontation developed. These are factual questions about operational conduct. My role is to assess the conduct against the industry standard and provide an objective opinion, not to advocate for a predetermined result. The strength of my testimony on either side of a case comes precisely from that objectivity.

Years of hands-on hospitality operations
0 +
Pages of training documentation authored
0 +
Both

Plaintiff and defense retained nationwide

Foreseeability

An Objective Assessment of What the Operational Evidence Actually Supports

Foreseeability is one of the most contested issues in dram shop and bar security litigation, and it is where the quality of the operational expert opinion matters most. The question is not simply whether harm occurred. It is whether the specific harm that occurred was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of the operational conditions at that venue. That determination requires an expert who can assess the venue’s incident history, security posture, staffing decisions, and management practices against the industry standard without starting from a conclusion.

Foreseeability Issues I Assess for Both Plaintiff and Defense

  • Prior similar incidents and prior criminal activity: What management knew, what their policies required them to do in response, and whether the failure to act constitutes notice-based liability or whether the incidents were too dissimilar to establish the relevant foreseeability

  • Patron’s observable condition: Whether the evidence supports the conclusion that a trained, reasonable employee would have recognized the patron’s level of intoxication as requiring a service refusal, or whether the facts do not support that inference

  • Foreseeable criminal acts of third parties: Whether the security staffing, training, and incident response protocols in place were adequate for the foreseeable risk profile of that specific venue type and environment, and whether the evidence supports or defeats that allegation

  • Policies and procedures: Whether the establishment’s internal policies addressed the relevant risks, whether they reflected industry standards, and whether the evidence supports the conclusion that they were or were not being followed

  • Capacity and security staffing: Whether the venue was operating within or outside of industry-standard staffing levels for its occupancy and risk profile on the date in question
"My opinion is grounded in the operational facts of the case and measured against the industry standard. Where the evidence supports liability, I can articulate exactly how and why. Where it does not, I can explain that just as clearly. That objectivity is what makes my testimony credible to a jury and durable under cross-examination."
Ryan Taylor Dahlstrom — The Dram Shop Expert
Training and Certification

I Know What TIPS, ServSafe, and State Certification Require, and Whether the Evidence Reflects That Standard

When complaints cite TIPS, ServSafe Alcohol, or TABC-approved seller training as the benchmark for the duty to hire, train, and supervise competent employees, the operative question for both sides is what those programs actually require in practice and whether the defendant’s documented training reflected that standard. I have built training programs around these certifications and managed staff required to follow them. I can assess the quality and completeness of whatever training documentation the defendant produced in discovery and provide an objective opinion about what it reflects operationally.

For plaintiff counsel, the absence of training documentation is often one of the most significant facts in the case. For defense counsel, the presence of comprehensive training records, consistently enforced, is one of the strongest available defenses. In either scenario, the value of an expert who has actually written these programs and managed their implementation is that the assessment is grounded in operational reality, not in what the documents say on their face. A training program that exists on paper but was never meaningfully implemented looks different from one that was actively enforced, and I can assess and explain that distinction credibly.

Evaluating the Gap Between Written Policy and Actual Conduct

Beyond the certification records themselves, the policies and procedures the establishment produced in discovery are among the most important documents in any dram shop or security negligence case. For plaintiff counsel, gaps between what those policies required and what the staff actually did establish breach through the venue’s own standards. For defense counsel, documentation showing that policies were adequate, consistently communicated, and actively enforced can directly undermine the plaintiff’s theory of negligent supervision and management neglect.

I assess both the substance of the written policies and the operational evidence of whether they were being followed. That assessment is the same whether I am working for the plaintiff or the defense. The difference is in what the evidence shows, not in how I approach the analysis.

Causation and Damages

Connecting or Contesting the Causal Chain Between Operational Conduct and the Alleged Harm

The direct and proximate cause framework that appears in every dram shop and security negligence complaint requires the plaintiff to trace a causal chain from the establishment’s breach to the plaintiff’s damages. Building or contesting that chain requires an expert who can assess each link operationally. For plaintiff counsel, that means establishing how the negligent service of alcohol or the failure to provide adequate security was the direct and proximate cause of the harm. For defense counsel, it means identifying where the causal chain is weak, speculative, or broken by an intervening cause that a reasonable operator could not have anticipated or prevented.

In cases involving multiple defendants or concurrent negligence, the substantial factor framework raises additional questions about how each party’s operational decisions contributed to or could have prevented the same harm. I can assess those questions objectively and provide an opinion on causation that the evidence supports, regardless of which side of the case I am on.

When punitive damages are at issue, the operational evidence either supports or defeats the characterization of the conduct as willful, wanton, or reckless. That characterization requires the same objective assessment as every other element of the case. My role is to evaluate what the evidence shows about how this establishment was actually being managed and whether that conduct reflects the kind of deliberate indifference to patron safety that punitive damages are intended to address, or whether it reflects something more nuanced that the evidence does not support.

Engage Early

The Earlier You Bring in an Industry Expert, the More Value the Engagement Provides

The most effective use of an industry expert in dram shop and bar security litigation is before the complaint is filed or before the defense strategy is set. Early engagement allows counsel on either side to assess the operational strengths and weaknesses of the case before significant resources are committed. For plaintiff counsel, that means evaluating whether the causation theory holds together operationally, identifying the most probative records, and understanding where the foreseeability argument is strongest. For defense counsel, it means assessing where the plaintiff’s theory is most vulnerable, understanding what the discovery record is likely to show, and developing a defense narrative grounded in the operational facts.

I have been retained by plaintiff and defense firms across the country on dram shop, bar security, and hospitality premises liability matters. I deliver thorough case reviews, well-documented expert reports, and deposition and trial testimony that reflects a careful, objective analysis of the operational evidence. If you have a case involving the operation of a licensed venue, I am available to discuss how my background applies to your specific facts.

Retained by Plaintiff and Defense Counsel Nationwide

Available for early case consultation, expert review, report preparation, deposition, and trial testimony. My opinion follows the evidence. Call or email to discuss your case.

Website

TheDramShopExpert.com

Also Visit

ExpertWitness.co

Email

Ryan@ExpertWitness.co

Phone

702.696.8745