Veteran Faces $10M Civil Trial

PHOTO CAPTION: Illustrative image of a man aiming a handgun at a shooting range. Army veteran James Grant is facing a $10 million civil lawsuit after shooting a man who broke into his Portland business in 2023.

PORTLAND, Ore. — An Army veteran who was never criminally charged after shooting a man who broke into his Portland business in 2023 is now defending himself before a civil jury in a lawsuit seeking $10 million.

James Grant, now 72, is being sued by Kenneth Voyles over a March 6, 2023, confrontation inside Grant's Touchstone Granite & Marble business. Voyles was later convicted of first-degree burglary and menacing stemming from the incident.

The civil trial began Aug. 10 in Multnomah County Circuit Court and is expected to conclude this week.

Voyles is seeking $5 million in compensatory damages and another $5 million in punitive damages. His lawsuit accuses Grant and Touchstone Granite & Marble of assault, battery, negligence and intentional infliction of emotional distress.

The shooting occurred at about 5:30 a.m. after Voyles entered the closed business. Court reporting shows Voyles acknowledged taking a DeWalt bag containing a drill that he intended to keep.

What happened after Grant encountered him is at the center of the civil case.

Grant, an Army veteran who held a concealed-weapons permit, told authorities and later jurors that Voyles became aggressive near the rear of the building. Grant said Voyles raised a pair of bolt cutters and began moving toward him.

Grant testified that he believed he was about to be attacked and fired three shots.

Voyles gives a different account. He maintains that he was attempting to leave the building and picked up the bolt cutters to help open a locked exit. His lawsuit alleges Grant returned with a handgun and shot him without warning.

Voyles suffered serious injuries, including a collapsed lung and a shattered bone in his arm that required multiple surgeries.

The confrontation was partially captured by surveillance video, but reporting from the trial indicates the crucial second encounter near the garage door — where the shooting occurred — was not captured.

Grant said he had intended to hold Voyles for police and fired only when he believed his life was in danger. Voyles' attorney has argued that Grant could have withdrawn to another part of the building instead of continuing the confrontation.

Police did not arrest Grant following the shooting, and prosecutors did not file criminal charges against him.

Voyles, meanwhile, was convicted of first-degree burglary of a dwelling and menacing. He received a sentence involving five years of drug treatment court and also served prison time for unrelated vehicle theft offenses.

Another issue in the civil case is the unusual nature of the building itself.

Grant had been sleeping in a back room of the granite business. His attorneys argue the property therefore functioned as his dwelling as well as his workplace, a distinction that could be significant when jurors consider the circumstances surrounding his use of force.

Voyles' lawsuit argues Grant used excessive force. Grant's defense maintains he acted to protect himself from what he reasonably believed was an imminent attack.

The civil jury, rather than criminal prosecutors, will now determine whether Grant is financially liable for the injuries Voyles suffered during the break-in.

(Source: OAF Nation)