This note considers the possible impact on Ohio law of the Prince holding. A review of Ohio's prior position on invasion of privacy suggests that the holding of Prince represents a substantial departure from past decisions in two respects: first, the plaintiffs alleged that their privacy was invaded when information was communicated to only one other person, and second, the invasion of the privacy of one spouse served as the basis for a claim of the other spouse. This apparent departure of Prince from prior decisions is discussed in the context of a physician's duty of confidentiality and defendant's breach of that confidence.
"Prince v. St. Francis-St. George Hospital, Inc.,"
Akron Law Review: Vol. 20
, Article 7.
Available at: http://ideaexchange.uakron.edu/akronlawreview/vol20/iss1/7