The Doorman Noticed, the Bartender Poured, the Video Is Gone
At 11:50 p.m., a doorman at a neighborhood tavern watches Cody, 22, get out of the passenger seat of a car: bloodshot eyes, a strong odor of alcohol, and he stumbles on the step. The doorman mentions it to no one. Inside, Cody orders two draft beers over about 40 minutes and pays cash. He leaves at 12:35 a.m. in the driver's seat. Six blocks away he runs a red light and strikes a car driven by a 41-year-old woman, who suffers a broken wrist and a concussion. Two weeks later, the tavern's owner receives a letter from the woman's attorney, and the insurer asks for the incident file. The tavern has no incident report. Its video system overwrites every 14 days. The bartender who served Cody quit last week. The tavern received a citation three years ago for a sale to a minor, and its written policy says employees must "watch for intoxication."
1. What is the tavern's exposure, and which facts cut for and against it?
Read the worked answer
Indiana does not protect licensees behind a narrow statutory shield; a person injured by an intoxicated driver can pursue a negligence claim against a licensee that served alcohol to someone who was visibly intoxicated, on the theory that the licensee's service was a cause of the harm. The ATC can also pursue administrative action independently of any lawsuit, because serving a visibly intoxicated person is prohibited by the license law itself.
Facts against the tavern: the doorman saw bloodshot eyes, an odor of alcohol, and a stumble before Cody ever reached the bar, and an employee's observation is knowledge the business is generally treated as having - the doorman's silence does not erase it. The service was cash, which leaves no card trail, and there is no incident report, no video, and no bartender to interview. The tavern's policy is a slogan ("watch for intoxication") with no procedure behind it, and a prior citation three years ago undercuts any claim that this was a first, isolated lapse.
Facts that help, though less than the owner will hope: he ordered only two beers inside, so the tavern will argue he did not appear intoxicated during service and that his condition at the door was a fleeting impression; the doorman's observation was never communicated; and the injured driver's recovery will be shaped by Cody's own responsibility for driving drunk and running the red light. "He was already drunk when he arrived" is not a defense - it sharpens the case, because it means the tavern served a person who was visibly intoxicated from the first minute.
2. What evidence should exist, and what should the owner do now?
Read the worked answer
What should have existed: a written incident report or at minimum a note from the doorman the moment he saw Cody stumble; POS or register records showing the two beers and the times; the schedule and timecards identifying the bartender and doorman; training records showing both were trained on intoxication recognition and on the duty to tell the bartender or manager; and video retained long enough to be useful.
What the owner should do now, in order: notify the insurer immediately and route all contact from the claimant's attorney through it - no informal calls, no apologies or admissions, no statements about "how many he had." Issue a written litigation hold covering POS data, schedules, training files, the doorman's and other staff's recollections, and any video. Confirm in writing whether the 14-day overwrite actually destroyed the footage or whether a backup exists; either way, document the retention settings as they were, without changing them retroactively. Get signed statements from the doorman and any other employee on shift while memories are fresh, and make clear that statements must be truthful - the doorman's failure to report is a fact to record, not a fact to hide. Finally, note that the former bartender's departure does not end the inquiry; a current address and a request for a statement through counsel or the insurer will be needed.
3. What operational changes would meaningfully reduce this risk, as distinct from cosmetic policy language?
Read the worked answer
The failure here was a communication failure between the door and the bar, followed by a records failure. Real fixes target both.
Door-to-bar communication: create a mechanism the doorman can actually use in five seconds - a radio call, a word to the manager on duty, or a simple flag on the door clipboard - with an explicit rule that a customer showing signs at the door is either refused entry or entered as "no alcohol, manager notified." Make clear that the doorman's job includes reporting, not just deciding.
Service discipline: a manager-visible cutoff authority written into the policy, a requirement that every refusal be logged on a one-page form, and a pre-shift huddle note about who is cut off. Cash customers deserve the same attention as card customers, because the absence of a card trail is exactly what makes a case hard to reconstruct.
Records: extend video retention to a period your insurer and counsel sign off on (60 to 90 days is a common target, not 14), keep schedules and training records for the period the license and insurer require, and store incident reports in one place a manager can find at 2 a.m.
Policy language: replace "watch for intoxication" with the specific observable signs staff are expected to act on, name who must be told, and retrain on it annually with documentation. A policy nobody can operationalize is evidence of good intentions, not of reasonable care.