Could Gordon's emotional distress after Caryn's call extend to Mike's relatives?

The correct answer is that emotional harm must be directly aimed at a substantial party. In tort law, generally, emotional distress claims require a direct relationship between the parties involved. The law recognizes that emotional distress, although a legitimate concern, often necessitates a close connection between the person experiencing the distress and the event that caused it.

In many jurisdictions, for a claim of emotional distress to be viable, the distress must arise from an event that significantly impacts the individual directly involved, rather than as a secondary effect resulting from another person's experience. For Gordon to claim emotional distress, it would typically need to be shown that he was directly affected by Caryn's behavior, rather than simply feeling distress due to its effect on Mike or his relatives.

This principle often distinguishes between primary and secondary victims. Primary victims directly experience the harmful event, while secondary victims, like relatives of those directly affected, may not have the same basis for a claim unless specific circumstances are met, such as witnessing a traumatic event directly. Thus, in this context, the emotional harm does not extend to Mike's relatives unless they were directly involved or affected in a substantial way.