I’m on the side of the owner on this one.Come on get the chip off the shoulder . Being a diabetic is’nt a right or an entitlement.If you can’t handle the rice go some place else. I’m sick of these silly law suites . Why is the owner being sued ,one word greed.
I have been to a number of sushi all you can eat places where the rules were very clear. If you take piece of ngiri sushi, you need to eat the rice before going back for more. Not an unreasonable rule. This guy knew the rules before ordering and still tried to evade the rules. Here is what the story says:
Restaurant owner Jay Oh told Martin that if he wanted the all-you-can-eat price, he’d have to eat the rice too and not just fill up on fish. Martin replied that he has diabetes and that he can’t eat rice.
Oh said he offered to prepare sashimi for Martin. Two orders of sashimi cost $25, or $3 less than the all-you-can-eat sushi deal. But Oh said Martin declined the offer.
I have no sympathy for this guy. We have a local all you can eat crab place, you have to eat the meat in the legs or Ernie comes out and gives you total grief and refuses to give you more crabs. I have no problem asking a restaurant to make accomodations, replacing mashed potatoes with a green veggie side, but this is just trying to scam the poor restaurant owner.
ps. Korshi Korean all you can eat buffet in Centreville, VA buffet has a wide range of sushi including a range of sashimi for basically the same price.
This is how we as diabetics allow eateries and restaurants to cater to everybody else (vegans, gluten free, organic). When it comes to our dietary needs we are more than happy to inconvenienced for products that we pay good money for.
This sushi owner didn’t have a all you can eat sashimi bar. I find it interesting that only a few people every mentioned being properly notified of the requirements at a buffet. Yes the owner "tried " to accommodate the customer but to what end. He came there for All you can eat buffet that was suppose to be endless. Would the owner have offered more sashimi at the same price? I doubt it.
I have already stated in a previous section that this was not a diabetic issue. I would hope other people would have seen this too.
I would love to see this Sushi owner put a sign explaining the requirement to participate in his version of “All you can Eat Sushi.” His business would drop 10 fold. Because sushi places are a dime a dozen out here. Nobody likes to have the Sushi police hovering over them to make sure they eat rice.
I’m with Holger here.
Christalyn, I’ve never seen a sushi place menu that DIDN’T have the rule that you must eat all the rice. This owner is not doing anything different from all the other places – it’s NOT just his version. If they didn’t have that rule, then they WOULD go out of business. Or else they would have to charge a LOT more money for the all-you-can-eat order – probably upwards of $50. And THAT would cut into their business a lot too.
In a la carte sushi, you don’t have to eat the rice, but it costs a lot more. That’s the trade-off.
Once again, it’s because it’s NOT a buffet. And I’ve never seen a sushi place (and I’ve eaten in a lot of them) where it’s not clearly stated on the menu that you have to eat all the rice. You order what you want, and then, if you’re not full, you can order more, but I doubt they’d take your order if they saw a mound of uneaten food on the table.
And you CAN get a plate of food you can eat in a sushi bar – the menus are detailed, and you just have to read them, and pick out the kinds of fish you like. There are even a few vegetarian sushis!
Sushi refers to the fish with rice - usually in rolls. What the fellow in the article was asking for was sashimi, or just the raw fish. Sashimi is generally more expensive and is not offered in an ‘All you can eat’ setting because of that fact. I think what it comes down to is that this particular type two didn’t understand the names of items that are on the menu on many Japanese sushi places.
In picking the fish off of the top he was requiring the owner to bring him more and more of the ‘rolls’ (not sure of the name of the piece with the slice of raw fish placed on the little chunk of rice) wherein he would waste the rest of the roll and just eat the expensive fish. I can see where the owner is coming from - this fellow was basically demanding to eat the most expensive part of the roll and since the meat isn’t as filling as the rice he was requiring more of the raw fish then the other patrons. In the article the owner ended up working it so that the type two ended up paying less for the exact thing he wanted - the sashimi.
The fellow in question needed to do more research when it comes down to eating food that he may not be familiar with. If I try a cuisine from a new country and I am not familiar with the ingredients just by looking at it or by reading the name then I ask - I base my dosing on this knowledge and to 'guess' or 'eat it anyhow' or 'argue with the chef' is not something that comes into play unless I want to pop up with a blood sugar of 300+ later on.
I think it is ridiculous to expect the world to cater to one's illness. It's my job to ask and it is a job that I am more then capable of doing. Diabetes education clearly needs to be re-evaulated if people are allowed to walk around with diabetes and not know the basics like asking about ingredients or what is included in a meal special.
The word “sushi” itself refers to sweetened and vinegared rice (does a number on your BGs!). The chunks of rice with fish (or scrambled egg) on top are called “nigiri”. The rolls are called “makizushi”. Hand rolls are called “temaki”. Fish without rice is called “sashimi”, although you can certainly have a bowl of steamed rice with it.
I’ve never been to a sushi restaurant that wasn’t extremely clear about what was in any dish they served. They are also clear about what side dishes are offered. And if you don’t understand, you can always ask. I have exactly NO sympathy for this guy – he was just trying to cheat the restaurant, and then claiming diabetes as an excuse. Especially since the owner gave him a reasonable alternative.
I’m all in favor of reasonable accommodations for diabetes on the job – I got them when I was teaching, but I’m not going to ask for special treatment when I don’t need it.
Or, since he lives in SoCal where sushi restaurants are, in fact, all over the place, it could also mean that he knew very well what he is doing? There’s a bit in “Repo Man” where the punkers go “Let’s do some crime!” and the other one says “Let’s do sushi and not pay!” and they run off.
I think the point that is being missed is that someone was so “embarrassed” they needed to sue someone else. If you are that embarrassed then don’t leave your house. I’ve had the police called on me because I was shooting insulin in public. Did I track down the caller and sue them for embarrassing me? No! I laughed about how stupid they were. If there really are “hundreds of such sushi places” then just take your business somewhere else and quit being a tort happy moron. This is life. Get over it.
OMG – that takes some nerve, eh? Calling the cops because they saw someone openly injecting medication in a public place?!?
Yikes. I would have laughed, too, but I’m afraid that inside I’d be wishing some very INSTANT karma on them, too. ;0)
Just sounds like another frivolous law suit from someone who wants to take advantage of others. Think of the knucklehead that sued McDonald’s for giving her hot coffee that she spilled in her lap, for damages. She would probably also have sued if it had not been hot enough…idiocy is an art form today.
Japanese do make meals out of sushi, but it’s VERY expensive, so they don’t do it very often.
So do I!! hee hee
Wait a minute… I thought all you can eat means load up your plate and eat as many plates of food. This owner is trying to put rules on a all you can eat. This part is ridiculous. I don’t understand why nobody is not upset with the owner acting like the food police in a all you can eat situation. What rules are there in a all you can eat situation? If there are suppose to be rules than the owner should have posted them at the door. From my understanding most people don’t learn, read or make decisions by osmosis or assumption.
I think the consensus is that part of the deal is that “all you can eat sushi” has an etymologically imbedded presumption that the rice is part of the deal and that to claim that having diabetes means you “can"t” eat the rice is cheating and that the guy is a loser who, by trying to use diabetes, is making us all look like losers and whiners who need special treatment. We need carb counts, not special treatment.
I’m going to a Thai restaurant with my family to celebrate my birthday on Monday, and I’m going to eat the rice. I will take more insulin than usual to make up for it, but that’s just part of the plan.
Since sushi IS rice, and the fish on top is just an appetizer, this guy doesn’t have a leg to stand on. I think we’ve discussed this ad infinitum, but I do want to know how the case comes out!
oooh, I’d hit the noodles @ a Thai place!! 