A Bryan man who was attacked by two pit bulls while walking along Old Kurten Road in November 2015 was awarded a $5.1 million judgment last week, according to his lawyer. 

Joseph Mooring suffered numerous bites, requiring three major skin grafts and extensive surgeries, said his lawyer, Davis Watson. Mooring has permanent nerve damage to his right leg and his right forearm, where tendons were severed, and is no longer able to work. 

The judgment was signed Friday by 85th District Court Judge Kyle Hawthorne. Although he's entitled to the $5.1 million, Watson said the likelihood of Mooring collecting the money is slim, as it's not clear if there are any assets or insurance to satisfy the judgment. 

The attack occurred in the early morning of Nov. 3, 2015, when Mooring, who was 54 at the time, was walking along Old Kurten Road on his way to work at McDonald's. Suddenly and without warning, Watson said, two pit bulls charged Mooring as he crossed in front of a house, knocking him to the ground. 

Mooring doesn't remember the attack, Watson said, likely due to blood loss. Two Bryan police officers who responded were credited with saving his life after noticing an arterial bleed on Mooring's arm and applying a tourniquet. Mooring was treated at St. Joseph hospital, where he stayed for a month and underwent six surgeries. His medical bills totaled more than $450,000. 

The dogs' owner, Gregory Flores Gonzalez, lived with his mother, Sandra Gonzalez, on Old Kurten Road. Mooring's lawsuit asserted that the two, along with Michael Gonzalez -- who was not named in the judgment -- failed to protect Mooring's safety, confine and control the dogs, handle them properly or train them to cease attacking upon voiced commands.

According to the lawsuit, a neighbor who came outside during the attack had hit the dogs to get them to release Mooring, and the pit bulls had "numerous problems" in the neighborhood and were "known to be vicious." 

The lawsuit also sought damages for physical pain, impairment and disfigurement, mental anguish, loss of earnings and future medical expenses. Watson described Mooring as a healthy, hard worker who loved attending family functions and playing with his grandkids before the incident. Mooring now can no longer work or take part in the activities he enjoyed, Watson said, and his body "is completely scarred." 

Recommended for you

(7) comments

Money

Ban pit bulls everywhere!

Suing the owners of pit bulls does nothing.... most are low income, uneducated, and worth nothing.

The state, city, mayors office or others need to be sued for failing to protect it's citizens.

Nobody cares about the owners.... the pit lobby turns there back on owners the minute their pit bull attacks

Pitbull Aware

Ban all owners/ caregivers of dogs that severely injure or kill from any dog ownership for LIFE.

Thomas McCartney

Pit bulls have KILLED more people than every other breed COMBINED, every decade since 1851.

This is the genetic truth and it's outcome of the Pit Bull type dog then, now and hopefully for not much longer in the future.!!

Fatal Pit Bull Attacks
Stop the Maulings
An archive of U.S. fatal pit bull attacks dating back to 1833 by DogsBite.org

http://www.fatalpitbullattacks.com/

Thomas McCartney

Council Bluffs, Iowa.

Pit bulls are not only problematic in large cities; they threaten mid-sized cities and small towns as well. Located in the heartland, Council Bluffs, Iowa has about 60,000 citizens.

After a series of devastating attacks, beginning in 2003, Council Bluffs joined over 1050 U.S. cities and began regulating pit bulls.

The results of the Council Bluffs pit bull ban, which began January 1, 2005, show the positive effects such legislation can have on public safety in just a few years time:1

Council Bluffs: Pit Bull Bite Statistics.

Year Pit Bull Bites % of All Bites.

2004 29 23%.

2005 12 10% (year ban enacted).

2006 6 4%.

2007 2 2%.

2008 0 0%.

2009 0 0%.

2010 1 1%.

2011 0 0%.
***********************************************************************************
Ottumwa, Iowa
Population 24,998

In July 2010, Police Chief Jim Clark said there had been no recorded pit bull attacks since the city's 2003 pit bull ban. Between 1989 and 2003, the city had a pit bull ordinance, but still allowed pit bulls as "guard" dogs.
"Police Chief Jim Clark says since the ban, there have been no recorded attacks by the animals.

"We haven't had any attacks since then for one thing because it is illegal," said Clark. "Most people are keeping their dogs inside their house or inside their basement and not letting them out loose so therefore they're not around other people to attack them."

"In the two-and-a-half years before the 2003 ban, Ottumwa police recorded 18 pit bull attacks, including the death of 21-month-old Charlee Shepherd in August 2002. There were at least three other attacks on children during this time."
************************************************************
Little Rock, Arkansas
Population 189,515

When the City of Indianapolis was discussing a pit bull sterilization law in April 2009, Little Rock Animal Services Director Tracy Roark spoke about Little Rock's successful 2008 pit bull ordinance:

"There was a day when you could walk down any street in center city Little Rock, you could see several pit bulls chained up. You don't see that anymore," said Tracy Roark with Little Rock Animal Services.

Roark told Eyewitness News over the phone that pit bull attacks have been cut in half and credits their new law with getting them there.
"This is the most abused dog in the city," said Roark.

The Little Rock law passed last year and requires pit bulls to be sterilized, registered and microchipped. Also dogs - regardless of the breed - are also not allowed to be chained up outside."
************************************************************
Fort Lupton, Colorado
Population 6,787
When the City of Fort Collins was mulling a pit bull law in March 2009, Fort Lupton's Police Chief spoke about Fort Lupton's successful 2003 pit bull ban, including zero pit bull biting incidents since the law's adoption:

"Fort Lupton Police Chief Ron Grannis said the city hasn’t had a pit bull bite since the ban was enacted, but it still has the occasional pit bull that is picked up and taken away.

Although he said the ban has not been well-received by every resident, he thinks it was the right decision for the city.

"I believe it makes the community safer,” he said. “That’s my personal opinion. Pit bulls are not the kind of dogs most people should have. They are too unpredictable. ... These dogs have been bred for thousands of years to be fighters.

You can’t take it out of them. A lion cub may be friendly for a while, but one day it can take your head off."
************************************************************
Reading, Pennsylvania
Population 80,560

After an 8-year legal battle, pit bull advocates dismantled a pit bull law adopted by Reading in 1998. It was reported in the same news article, in February 2008, that the law had significantly reduced biting incidents:

"Reading's 1998 law required that aggressive or dangerous dogs, when outside the home, be muzzled and kept on a leash shorter than three feet long with a minimum tensile strength of 300 pounds.

The law also punished violators with fines of up to $1,000 or 30 days in jail.
The law is credited with helping to reduce dog bites from 130 in 1999 to 33 in 2006. As a result, the law - or at least elements of it - were not being actively enforced, the Reading Eagle reported last year.

Thomas McCartney

The difference between normal dogs and Pit Bull Type Dogs is that those non pit bull type dogs regardless of their size do not have an inherent genetic predisposition to Kill, Maul, Maim, Disfigure, Dismember, cause Life Flights or trips to the Intensive Care Unit.

They can be taken on a dog by dog basis and their ownership will determine their behavior.

All pit bull type dogs have an inherent genetic predisposition to Kill, Maul, Maim, Disfigure, Dismember, cause Life Flights or trips to the Intensive Care Unit due to their genetic connection to the Roman war dog Aluant & The Ol English Bulldogge precursor genetics that led to the creation of the Pi Bull Terrier, and will do so no matter how they are raised, it is a generic genetic reality which is why they all need to be banned to prevent there numbers from reaching greater numbers which would lead to carnage in the streets.

In North America, from 1982-2014, Bullmastiffs have been responsible for 111 serious attacks on humans, resulting in 63 maimings and 18 deaths.

In North America, from 1982-2014, Presa Canarios have been responsible for 111 attacks on humans that resulted in 18 fatalities.

In North America, from 1982-2014, Cane Corsos have seriously attacked 21 humans that resulted in 12 maimings and 2 fatality. In addition, a Cane Corso/Pit Bull mix attacked 1 person that resulted in a fatality.

In North America, from 1982-2014, Dogo Argentinos have been responsible for 5 serious attacks on humans that resulted in 1 fatality. This breed in rare in North America.

In North America from 1982-2014 Fila Brasileiro’s have seriously attacked 5 humans and were responsible for 1 death.

Thomas McCartney

The All dogs are in danger by BSL is a red herring designed by pit bull type dog advocacy to deflect and obfuscate the focus from where it belongs, all dogs that are pit bull type dogs with pit bull Genetic lineage with a direction connection genetically to the Ol English Bulldoggee Butcher dog & Roman Alaunt war dogs are in need of extinction and are not fit to interact with the human race safely.

We are talking about maybe 15 Pit Bull Type Dogs out of over 400 breeds of dogs in existence, hardly a threat to all dogs and in realty it is the 3 main breeds with the rest mixes of them or not so distant cousins of them merely known by another name elsewhere in the world.

All other Dogs even other molossor dogs have no genetic connection to the Ol English Bulldoggee Butcher dog and are moot to this conversation and in no need of BSL.

If you focus on only the 3 most popular pit bull type dogs you risk them hiding their pit bulls behind the name of another allowed pit bull type dog or simply switching to it, no different from switching from a white pit bull to a brown one.

The answer is that you ban all pit bull type dogs which are: American Staffordshire Terrier, Staffordshire bull terriers, American pit bull terriers, American Bulldog, Bull mastiffs, dogo argentinos, fila brasieros, presa canarios, Japanese Tosa, cane corsos, Bandogs, rhodesian ridgebacks and their mixes and any dog generally recognized as a pit bull or pit bull terrier and includes a dog of mixed breed with predominant pit bull or pit bull terrier characteristics.

It is all or none, otherwise the protected pit bulls will just keep on mauling, as well it will give an opportunity to allow pit nutters to call their APBT this other protected type of pit bull to avoid any BSL or simply get a Dogo Argentino for an example which would be even worse then a APBT in similar numbers.

It is exactly like saying only tan APBT's are dangerous and that all Black & all White ones are safe, same outcome too i might add a hopeless failure of BSL in that context with no change in the number of attacks that Kill, Maul, Maim, Disfigure, Dismember, cause Life Flights or trips to the Intensive Care Unit.

No Kill Nutters and Pit Bull Nutters walk hand in hand off of the same cliff of insanity hand in glove, functionally speaking more often then not they are one and the same.!!

Thomas McCartney

First, second and third we want, need and should demand public safety and personal security.

Anything that stands in the way of this must be removed, not changed, not modified, not altered but Removed completely.

To argue in effect for breed neutral legislation that is not preemptive but reactive and dependent on responsible ownership is an oxymoron that has no purpose nor use and will not stand.

Yes Pit bull ownership going underground due to BSL would be a good thing, through this fact one would rarely encounter the owner or mutant undog and the likelihood of attack from them both would be drastically reduced into obscurity, what can't access you can't hurt you.

Having them hidden in far far smaller numbers in some basement or attic is far preferable to having the current numbers allowed to be owned where the safety of said community would be wholly dependent on the responsibility of pit bull owners when such ownership does not nor has it existed in the last 30+ years.

To think that if we merely ask and say pretty please and try to inform the pit bull owner of what his responsibilities should be that he will then undertake them is foolish, naive, and dangerous.

Their numbers will not decline, the pit bull owners will not become responsible and an ever worsening status quo will be the outcome of such viewpoints.

Most pit bull owners are fully aware of what they own, their history and capability, they just don't care nor will they.

This battle is not about semantics, it is about truth, facts and life and death, these are what need to be imparted to the general public so that they understand the reality of what the pit bull type dog is so they can react accordingly, this must be phrased in a stark black and white contrast.

Playing word games & using PR obfuscation merely distracts the public from the real core safety issue involved, in the immortal words of Joe Friday they need the facts, just the real facts mame.

The pit nutters minds can't be changed by facts or anything because they are not rational sentient beings, they are culls and a lost cause.

But facts will change and direct the silent majority to the reality of the situation and then they will do the rest for us all.

You can NOT be a responsible Lion owner in a residential suburban context, nor a responsible owner of a tiger, cougar, cobra or wolverine, to try to sell the concept that one can be a responsible pit bull type dog owner is as irrational as any of those options would be in regards to the vast % of pit bull type dogs and there owners.

Pit bull owners don't care about your right of freedom to be safe, they don't care about their obligation to be responsible and don't recognize the existence of said concept.

They will never agree to any restriction placed upon them, even a leash law, S/N law or that they undergo a basic training course with their undogs are an anathema to them, how are you going to get them to agree to really serious restrictions like insurance, muzzleing, kenneling, short lease, getting their undogs fixed and chipped, registered with photos, if you believe any of that is possible you are living in a dream world that is a fantasy that will be the death of us all.

When it comes to pit bull type dog owners you are talking about narcissistic sociopaths who don't care who don't feel, to whom you, yours and anyone is expendable whose lives have no purpose nor meaning to pit nutters.

To think that one can get them to change and accept responsibility and restrictions on their undogs for our betterment is foolish and delusional.

They don't even care about their own dogs and consider them disposable, so to think they will agree to these restrictions for their undogs sake is misguided at best.

Pit bull owners have lost their minds and never had their hearts, the only thing that will work is hard core enforcement of severe BSL unless you want the status quo expounded many times over in blood facts on the pavement.

BSL is the only solution, any breed neutral abstract application of psychology would be doomed to failure.!!!!

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.