If emotional harm is suffered by a third party due to intentional harm aimed at someone else, does this third party have a claim?

A third party may have a claim for emotional harm if the action was intended to cause harm to someone else, particularly if it affects the third party's emotional well-being. Under the principles of tort law, especially when considering claims for bystander emotional distress, factors such as the nature of the harm, the relationship between the parties, and the foreseeability of emotional harm play a crucial role.

In this case, if the intentional harm directed at the primary victim is severe and the third party experiences significant emotional distress as a result, this can substantiate a claim. The Restatement provides a framework in which a bystander can recover damages for emotional injuries when the emotional distress is a foreseeable consequence of the defendant's action directed at another.

Other options do not align with established legal principles. For instance, suggesting that emotional harm claims are only valid for direct victims overlooks situations where third parties can reasonably be expected to suffer emotional distress. The idea that it always hinges on the relationship or on the severity of the harm simplifies the nuanced approach courts may take in determining when emotional harm claims are valid, which may vary on a case-by-case basis.