2006_0410_Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

show that any members of Outback management or ownership were negligent or reckless. The Police need only show that an einployee of the licensee in fact served alcohol to an underage person. If that is shown, a violation has occurred. Therefore, the Outback's position in this case that there was nothing the manger could have done differently to prevent a violation is no defense to a penalty, even if ir��e. I�� fact an employee of the Outback served alcohol to a minor. That is a violation for which the Outback, the license holder, is legally responsible. This situation is not unique. If an employee of the Outback accidentally drops a tray and injures a customer, the Outback is responsible for the act of its employee — even if the act was an accident, anc� even if the Outback management and ownership could not feasibly have done anything to prevent the accident. Of course, without second-guessing the Outback's manager in this case, there are additional things the Outback could be doing regarding service of alcol�olic beverages. The Outback could adopt a policy of carding every person who requests an alcoholic beverage, regardless of their appearance. Some other liquor licensees do this, as reflected by signs within the establishment notifying customers that all persons requesting alcoholic beverages will be asked to show identification of their age. Or, a variation of this approach, the Outback could require their servers to card every liquor customer who appears younger than 40, as some other liquor licensees also do. To be sure, such a policy is more bother for the licensee and its customers. Licensees, I suppose, have to balance that consequence with th� consequence of not more aggressively checicing the age of customers seeking alcoholic beverages and thereby risking serving underage persons. It is not my role to require or even suggest these or other changes to the Outback's policy regarding service of alcoholic beverages. That is a decision for the Outback to inal�e� But I use these as examples of things that could be done to enhance the Outback's policies and lessen the risk that alcohol will be served to minors. The second reason I would not reduce the penalty even if it were not a mandatory minimum penalty, relates to the Outback's written alcohol service policy. Although the Outback has submitted for the Chiefs consideration a liquor training policy, that submitted policy appears, upon my review, to be questionable in terms of compliance with the Chiefs standards for approval. Of course, the Chief will have to decide whether the training progran� now submitted by the Outback meets with the Chiefs approval. Presumably, �lze Chief will mak� this decision consistent with his standards and decisions in reviewing the alcolao� training programs of other licensees. The Code clearly says that participation in this optional training program lessens the penalty for violations only if the training program has been approved before a violation occurs. Therefore, even if I wanted to give positive weight to the fact that a writtez� training program has bECn submitted following t��e violation, the Liquor Code does not allow me to do that.