A Portland civil lawsuit raises unresolved questions about the use of force against an alleged intruder. Voyles admits entering the business without permission, while alleging he was shot as he tried to leave.
Kenneth Voyles is suing James Grant and Touchstone Granite & Marble for $10 million after Voyles was shot during an alleged break-in at the Portland business on March 6, 2023. The Oregon lawsuit seeks $5 million in compensatory damages and $5 million in punitive damages, and it centers on whether Grant’s use of force against an intruder was lawful.
Voyles acknowledges entering the closed business without permission and intending to keep a drill bag. But his complaint says he was attempting to get out when Grant allegedly shot him multiple times, creating a civil dispute over what happened in the final moments of the encounter.
A claim, not a court finding
Voyles filed the civil case in Multnomah County on May 6, 2026, according to KPTV’s report on court documents. He named Grant and Touchstone Granite & Marble Inc. as defendants.
The complaint alleges battery, assault, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Those claims remain allegations; no judge or jury has determined whether Grant or the company is legally responsible.
The requested $10 million is also not an award or payment order. A lawsuit may be dismissed, settled, resolved for a different amount or tried before a jury, which could reject some or all of the claims.
- $5 million in compensatory damages: generally intended to address claimed injuries, losses and other harm.
- $5 million in punitive damages: sought in some cases to punish particularly wrongful conduct and discourage similar conduct.
The account in Voyles’ complaint
According to the filing, 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 gone inside seeking warmth and food.
The complaint says Grant came out of a back room after Voyles entered and that Voyles apologized. Voyles alleges Grant threw a coffee mug and heavy tiles as he moved toward the garage door to leave.
Voyles says he picked up bolt cutters as a shield and could not open the locked door. The complaint alleges Grant left the room, returned with a handgun and fired multiple times without warning.
It further alleges Grant made a threatening statement before firing again while Voyles tried to get through the damaged door. Grant and Touchstone had not returned requests for comment when KPTV published its report, so the available reporting did not include their account of the shooting.
The admission shaping the defense
Voyles does not claim he was a customer, employee or invited guest. His lawsuit acknowledges both the unauthorized entry and his intent to keep a drill bag found inside the business.
That admission could be important to any defense. An after-hours break-in may affect how a court assesses an owner’s perception of danger, the urgency of events and whether a response was reasonable.
At the same time, trespassing does not by itself answer every question in a civil injury claim. The central dispute is whether the force alleged in the complaint was legally permissible in the particular circumstances, including what Grant knew and what Voyles was doing at each point.
Injuries cited in damages demand
Voyles alleges he suffered penetrating chest wounds, a collapsed lung and shattered bones in his right arm. The complaint says his arm injuries required vascular repair and multiple surgeries.
Those allegations help explain why Voyles is seeking substantial compensatory damages. In litigation, a plaintiff may seek recovery for claimed medical care, future treatment, lost income, pain and other consequences, but evidence supporting each category would need to be developed as the case proceeds.
The severity of the alleged injuries does not decide the liability question. It does, however, make the factual dispute over the shooting especially consequential for both Voyles and the defendants.
Why the force question remains open
The complaint presents two competing facts that are likely to matter throughout the case. Voyles admits he was inside the business without permission, while alleging he was trying to flee when Grant fired.
Voyles’ version portrays an intruder trying to exit through a damaged or locked doorway while an owner escalated the confrontation. A defense could argue Grant faced an immediate perceived threat inside a closed commercial property, particularly because Voyles had picked up bolt cutters.
Neither version has been established in court. If the case moves forward, police records, physical evidence, medical evidence, witness testimony, surveillance video, prior statements and the exact sequence of events could all be significant.
What has not been decided
No ruling described in the available reporting has determined whether Grant acted lawfully, whether Touchstone is liable for Grant’s conduct or whether Voyles can prove his claims. Voyles alleges the company bears responsibility because Grant was securing the business and says Touchstone lacked reasonable policies or training for after-hours security situations.
For now, the case puts a difficult issue into a civil-court process: an alleged burglar can seek damages after being shot, while a business owner may contend that the threat was immediate and real. The lawsuit is a demand for accountability and damages, not a final judgment on the Portland shooting.
Leave a Reply