admin
A Multnomah County civil jury has, according to local trial coverage, told a would‑be plaintiff to take a hike — awarding zero dollars to a man who broke into a Portland business, was shot three times, and then tried to collect $10 million. The verdict is a welcome bit of common sense in a city famous for letting chaos and bad incentives roam free.
Jury Rejects $10 Million Lawsuit
Reporters say the jury rejected the $10 million claim brought by Kenneth Voyles against Touchstone Granite & Marble and owner James Grant. After a weeklong trial, jurors sided with Grant and awarded no damages for claims of battery, negligence, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. Local accounts indicate the jury did not find that Grant’s use of force was unjustified and declined to make the business owner pay for injuries the intruder suffered while committing a crime.
What Really Happened That Night
The facts the jury wrestled with are straightforward enough. In the early hours of March 6, 2023, Voyles entered the closed granite shop. He later admitted he took a drill and pried open a building. Grant says the intruder raised bolt cutters and moved aggressively toward him; Voyles says he was trying to flee and was shot as he tried to escape. Voyles suffered serious wounds, pleaded no contest to burglary and menacing in related criminal proceedings, and then turned around and sued for millions — a move that had many folks shaking their heads.
Self-Defense, Business vs. Home
Oregon’s laws draw a line between defending a dwelling and defending a business, and that legal split matters here. The “Castle Doctrine” language people talk about often applies to homes, not storefronts, but the jury heard testimony that Grant was sleeping in his store that night — a fact that likely made jurors more sympathetic to his fear for his life. At trial the central question was credibility: did Grant reasonably fear imminent harm when he shot, or did he use excessive force? The jury answered in Grant’s favor.
A Win for Common Sense
This verdict sends a simple message: you do not get to start a burglary, get hurt while committing it, and then turn around and sue the person who defended himself and his property. In a city where business owners already face theft, arson and a permissive attitude toward occupation of public space, allowing frivolous suits like this would be the final straw. Call it a narrow win for property rights and self‑defense — and a reminder that accountability still matters, even in places that have lost their way.
