The Portland case centers on a difficult legal question: whether a business owner’s response to an after-hours intruder crossed the line into unlawful force. The allegations in the lawsuit have not been tested in court, and the defense had not publicly responded.
Kenneth Voyles, a man who was shot while breaking into an Oregon business, is suing the Portland business owner for $10 million. Voyles’ lawsuit says Touchstone Granite & Marble owner James Grant shot him multiple times during the March 6, 2023 encounter; the complaint seeks $5 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages.
The case has drawn attention because Voyles acknowledges in the filing that he entered the closed business without permission and intended to keep a drill bag. But his lawsuit argues that Grant’s alleged use of force went far beyond what was justified after an intruder tried to leave.
The $10 million lawsuit
Voyles filed the civil lawsuit in Multnomah County on May 6, 2026, according to KPTV’s report on court documents. He names Touchstone Granite & Marble Inc. and Grant as defendants.
The complaint alleges battery, assault, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Those are allegations, not findings by a judge or jury.
- $5 million is sought for compensatory damages, which generally aim to address claimed losses and injuries.
- $5 million is sought in punitive damages, intended in some cases to punish especially wrongful conduct and deter it.
Voyles also alleges that the company bears responsibility for Grant’s conduct because he was acting to secure the business. The suit further claims Touchstone lacked reasonable policies or training for after-hours security situations.
The complaint’s account of the shooting
According to the lawsuit, Voyles entered the closed granite and marble shop on Northeast Columbia Boulevard through a damaged section of a garage bay door. He says he was homeless, cold and sleep-deprived and had entered looking for warmth and food.
The complaint says Grant emerged from a back room and that Voyles apologized. It alleges Grant threw a coffee mug and heavy tiles while Voyles moved toward the garage door in an effort to get out.
Voyles says he picked up bolt cutters as a shield and unsuccessfully tried to open the locked door. The filing alleges Grant then left the room, returned with a handgun and fired multiple times without warning.
It also alleges Grant made a threatening statement before firing again as Voyles tried to get through the damaged door. Grant and Touchstone had not returned requests for comment when KPTV published its report, so their account of the encounter was not included.
Voyles acknowledges unauthorized entry
The lawsuit does not present Voyles as an invited customer or employee. It acknowledges that he was trespassing and that he intended to keep a drill bag he picked up inside the business.
That admission is likely to be central to any defense. An after-hours break-in can shape how a court evaluates an owner’s perception of danger, the urgency of the situation and the reasonableness of a response.
Yet an unauthorized entry does not automatically resolve every question raised by a civil injury claim. The dispute suggested by the complaint is not simply whether Voyles was lawfully inside; it is whether the force allegedly used against him was legally permissible under the circumstances.
The injuries behind the damages demand
Voyles alleges that he suffered penetrating chest wounds, a collapsed lung and shattered bones in his right arm. The complaint says the arm injuries required vascular repair and multiple surgeries.
Those alleged injuries help explain the size of the requested compensatory award. In civil cases, plaintiffs may seek damages for medical care, future treatment, lost income, pain and other claimed consequences, though the specific evidence supporting each category would have to be developed in litigation.
The $10 million figure is a demand, not a payment order. A lawsuit can be dismissed, settled, resolved for a different amount or go to trial, where a jury could reject some or all of the claims.
Why the case turns on force
The starkest competing facts are already visible in the complaint: Voyles admits he entered the business without permission, while he alleges that he was trying to flee when Grant fired. Each point matters to how the episode may be assessed.
Voyles’ version portrays an intruder attempting to leave through a damaged or locked exit and an owner escalating the confrontation. A defense could argue that Grant faced a perceived threat inside a closed commercial property, particularly because Voyles had picked up bolt cutters.
Neither account has been established in a courtroom. Police records, physical evidence, medical evidence, witness testimony, surveillance video, prior statements and the precise sequence of events could all become important if the lawsuit proceeds.
What remains unresolved
No ruling described in the available reporting has determined whether Grant acted lawfully, whether Touchstone is liable, or whether Voyles can prove the claims in his complaint. There is also no public defense account in the report addressing the allegations point by point.
The case puts an emotionally charged question into a civil-court framework: an alleged burglar may still seek damages after being shot, while a business owner may argue that the danger was immediate and real. The answer will depend on evidence about what Grant knew, what Voyles was doing and whether the force used was justified at each moment of the encounter.
For now, the lawsuit is a claim for accountability and damages, not a final judgment on the 2023 shooting at the Portland business.
Leave a Reply