Is Caryn liable for intentional infliction of emotional distress after alarming Mike's roommate?

The correct answer is based on the principle that for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) to be established, the emotional harm must be directed at the person claiming the distress. In this context, while Caryn's actions may have been distressing to Gordie, the critical factor is that Caryn did not intend to target Gordie; rather, her intent was likely focused on Mike.

IIED requires that the defendant's conduct be intentional or reckless, that it be extreme and outrageous, and that it cause severe emotional distress to the targeted individual. In this case, if Caryn's actions were aimed specifically at Mike but unintentionally affected his roommate, Gordie, it does not satisfy the requirement that the distress must be directed at the individual experiencing the harm. Thus, the claim cannot be sustained based on Gordie's experience alone, making this interpretation of the facts crucial in understanding the application of IIED standards in tort law.