Forum Non Conveniens, Foreign Law, and Waiver After In re Greyhound Lines, Inc.

I. Introduction

The Supreme Court of Texas’s per curiam decision in In re Greyhound Lines, Inc., No. 23-1035 (Tex. May 23, 2025), is a significant addition to Texas forum non conveniens jurisprudence under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 71.051. The case arises from a fatal bus crash in Mexico, in which Maria Granados—an Alabama resident and Mexican citizen—died while traveling on the Mexican leg of a trip originating in Alabama.

The plaintiffs (members of the Granados family) sued Greyhound Lines, Inc., a Delaware corporation headquartered in Dallas, in a Texas district court. They also named as defendants Estrella Blanca—a Mexican bus company—and the bus driver, both based in Mexico. Their claims included:

Contract and fraud-based claims (alleged failure to disclose Estrella Blanca’s involvement);
Negligence, negligence per se, negligent entrustment, hiring, training, supervision;
Wrongful death and survival claims; and
Vicarious liability theories against Greyhound and Estrella Blanca.

Greyhound moved to dismiss based on forum non conveniens, arguing that Mexico— particularly San Luis Potosí—was the appropriate forum, and stipulating that it would submit to Mexican jurisdiction and waive any limitations defense there. The trial court denied dismissal, holding that Mexican courts were neither “available” nor “adequate.” The court of appeals denied mandamus relief, and Greyhound sought review in the Supreme Court of Texas.

The central issues before the Court included:

Whether Mexico constituted an “available” and “adequate” alternate forum under § 71.051(b)(1)–(2), despite alleged procedural obstacles and more limited remedies;
How to weigh the statutory forum non conveniens factors—especially given that the accident and much of the evidence were in Mexico, while Greyhound is headquartered in Texas;
Whether Greyhound’s filing of a crossclaim against Estrella Blanca (for contractual indemnity) constituted a judicial admission that Texas is a proper forum or a waiver of its forum non conveniens rights;
How determinations of foreign law (here, Mexican law) are reviewed on appeal under Texas Rule of Evidence 203.

The Court conditionally granted mandamus, directing the trial court to dismiss the claims against Greyhound on forum non conveniens grounds, subject to Greyhound’s existing stipulations and any additional conditions the trial court deems necessary in the interests of justice.

II. Summary of the Opinion

The Court’s opinion proceeds in three broad steps:

Standard of Review for Foreign Law. The Court reiterates that determinations of foreign law are questions of law reviewed de novo under Texas Rule of Evidence 203. Although foreign law is “proved” through expert testimony and materials, appellate courts are not bound by trial-level credibility determinations regarding foreign-law experts.
Application of the Statutory Forum Non Conveniens Factors. Applying § 71.051(b), the Court holds that:
- Mexico is an “available” alternate forum because Greyhound is amenable to process there and has stipulated to jurisdiction and waiver of limitations;
- Mexico is an “adequate” forum despite lacking certain U.S.-style procedures and remedies (e.g., punitive damages, jury trial, broad discovery);
- Requiring trial in Texas would work a “substantial injustice” to Greyhound, as most witnesses and evidence are in Mexico;
- Mexican courts can exercise jurisdiction over all properly joined defendants (Greyhound by submission; Estrella Blanca and the bus driver as Mexican residents);
- The balance of private and public interests—particularly the location of the accident, evidence, and applicable law—strongly favors Mexico;
- Dismissal will not result in “unreasonable” duplication or proliferation of litigation.
Because all six statutory factors favor dismissal, the trial court abused its discretion in denying Greyhound’s motion.
No Judicial Admission or Waiver by Crossclaim. The Court rejects the plaintiffs’ contention that Greyhound’s crossclaim against Estrella Blanca:
- constituted a judicial admission that Texas is a proper forum; or
- waived Greyhound’s right to seek dismissal on forum non conveniens.
The crossclaim’s allegations about jurisdiction and venue for indemnity obligations did not concede that Texas is the appropriate forum for the underlying tort claims. And preserving an indemnity claim, especially after the trial court has already denied a forum non conveniens motion, is not inconsistent with continuing to seek dismissal.

The Court conditionally grants mandamus, ordering the trial court to:

vacate its order denying Greyhound’s forum non conveniens motion; and
dismiss the claims against Greyhound, subject to Greyhound’s stipulations and any further conditions imposed under § 71.051(c).

III. The Legal Framework and Precedents

A. Statutory Forum Non Conveniens under § 71.051

Section 71.051 governs forum non conveniens in Texas for personal-injury and wrongful-death actions. Under § 71.051(b), a court must stay or dismiss a claim if, “in the interest of justice and for the convenience of the parties,” it determines that the claim “would be more properly heard in a forum outside this state,” after considering six enumerated factors:

Existence of an alternate forum in which the claim may be tried (“availability”);
Whether the alternate forum provides an “adequate” remedy;
Whether maintaining the action in Texas would work a substantial injustice to the moving party;
Whether the alternate forum can exercise jurisdiction—by submission or otherwise—over all properly joined defendants;
Whether the balance of private and public interests predominates in favor of the alternate forum, including the extent to which acts or omissions in Texas caused the injury or death;
Whether a stay or dismissal would result in unreasonable duplication or proliferation of litigation.

Notably:

No formal “burden of proof.” Citing In re ENSCO Offshore Int’l Co., 311 S.W.3d 921 (Tex. 2010), the Court reiterates that neither party has the burden of proof; the trial court must decide based on “the greater weight of the evidence.”
Mandamus standard. Under In re General Electric Co., 271 S.W.3d 681 (Tex. 2008), mandamus relief is available when the trial court denies a forum non conveniens motion and all statutory factors favor dismissal.
Texas-resident exception. Under § 71.051(e), a Texas court may not dismiss under subsection (b) if the plaintiff is a legal resident of Texas (or a derivative claimant of such a resident). Here, the decedent and her son resided in Alabama, so this statutory protection did not apply.

B. Common-Law Forum Non Conveniens

The Court briefly notes that § 71.051 applies to personal-injury and wrongful-death cases, while common-law forum non conveniens governs other contexts (e.g., some contract or commercial disputes), citing In re Mahindra, USA Inc., 549 S.W.3d 541 (Tex. 2018). Though the Granadoses asserted contract and fraud claims, neither party argued for separate analysis, and the Court effectively applies the statutory framework globally to the case.

C. The “Hybrid” Nature of Foreign-Law Determinations

A key doctrinal point concerns how Texas courts determine and review foreign law under Rule 203. Relying on Long Distance Int’l, Inc. v. Telefonos de Mexico, S.A. de C.V., 49 S.W.3d 347 (Tex. 2001), the Court reiterates that:

Parties present expert testimony and documentary materials to “prove” foreign law much like evidence;
Courts may look beyond those materials, but if they do, they must give notice and an opportunity to comment or supplement;
Critically, the content and meaning of foreign law is ultimately a question of law for the court, not fact. Appellate courts therefore review such determinations de novo, not deferentially.

This “hybrid” model—evidentiary in presentation, legal in character—matters in In re Greyhound because the trial court appears to have sided with the plaintiffs’ Mexican-law expert on key issues, including whether the absent bus driver was a “necessary party.” The Supreme Court does not defer to that implicit credibility determination; instead, it independently analyzes the expert materials and reaches a different conclusion.

IV. Application of § 71.051: The Court’s Legal Reasoning

A. Nature of the Claims

Before applying the statutory factors, the Court describes the “nature of the claims,” an analytic step seen in other forum non conveniens cases (e.g., In re CEVA Ground US, LP). It distinguishes two clusters of claims:

Contract and fraud claims. These arise from Greyhound’s alleged failure to disclose that Estrella Blanca—a separate Mexican carrier—would handle part of the trip. While these claims link in part to Texas (headquarters, ticketing agreement), their damages flow from the crash in Mexico.
Tort claims tied directly to the crash. The negligence, negligence per se, negligent entrustment, training, hiring, supervision, wrongful-death, survival, and vicarious-liability claims are centered in Mexico: the accident occurred there; the driver was an Estrella Blanca employee; Mexican authorities investigated; and Mexican officials issued the death certificate.

This characterization sets up the Court’s conclusion that the case, viewed as a whole, is overwhelmingly Mexican in its factual center of gravity.

B. Factor One: “Availability” of an Alternate Forum

Section 71.051(b)(1) asks whether an “alternate forum exists in which the claim or action may be tried.” Under Texas precedent, an alternate forum is “available” if the defendant is “amenable to process” in that forum, a formulation drawn from In re ENSCO and reiterated in In re Weatherford Int’l, LLC, 688 S.W.3d 874 (Tex. 2024).

1. Mexico as an Available Forum

The Court follows its earlier holdings in In re Pirelli Tire, L.L.C., 247 S.W.3d 670 (Tex. 2007), and In re Bridgestone Americas Tire Operations, LLC, 459 S.W.3d 565 (Tex. 2015), both involving Mexican accidents, to treat Mexico as a presumptively available alternate forum—especially where defendants stipulate to jurisdiction and waive limitations defenses.

Here, Greyhound:

Expressly stipulated that it would submit to the jurisdiction of Mexican courts; and
Waived any statute of limitations defense in Mexico.

The Court emphasizes that the trial court may attach further conditions under § 71.051(c), such as:

Requiring Mexican courts to accept jurisdiction as a condition of dismissal;
Ensuring that Greyhound (and those within its control) appear as witnesses in the Mexican proceedings.

Such conditional dismissals are consistent with General Electric and other prior decisions.

2. The “Necessary Party” Argument under Mexican Law

The trial court found that Mexican courts were unavailable because the bus driver was allegedly a “necessary party” under Mexican law, and he had fled and could not be located. The plaintiffs’ expert presented Mexican case summaries suggesting that:

All defendants must be “called” or “summoned”;
A sentence (judgment) must affect all defendants with a single ruling; and
No judgment shall be issued as to one defendant unless all parties are resolved at the same time.

The Supreme Court, reviewing de novo, rejects the trial court’s interpretation. The materials, properly read, require that all necessary parties be summoned and that the judgment dispose of the claims against them together; they do not say that:

a defendant’s failure to appear per se bars judgment
or that the physical absence of one defendant (the driver) makes the entire forum unavailable.

Greyhound offered unrefuted materials suggesting Mexican law recognizes joint-and-several liability and allows a plaintiff to recover from one defendant without the other’s participation. That sufficed to undermine the claim that the driver’s absence rendered Mexico an unavailable forum.

3. Plaintiff’s Refusal to Consent to Jurisdiction Is Irrelevant

The plaintiffs argued that Mexico is unavailable because they decline to consent to Mexican jurisdiction. The Court rejects this outright, clarifying an important doctrinal point:

“Availability” turns on the defendant’s amenability to process, not the plaintiff’s willingness to sue there.
A plaintiff’s choice of Texas is entitled to “great deference” (per Pirelli Tire and Mahindra), but it “must sometimes yield in the public interest, and in the interest of fundamental fairness.”
Allowing plaintiffs to defeat forum non conveniens merely by refusing to appear in the alternate forum would “greatly narrow, if not obliterate,” the doctrine.

This is a clear and practical rule: a plaintiff cannot unilaterally veto an otherwise appropriate alternate forum.

4. Possibility of Foreign Court Rejecting Jurisdiction

The plaintiffs further contended that Mexican courts might exercise their discretion to reject the case. Again citing General Electric, the Court explains that the mere “possibility” that a foreign court might not accept jurisdiction does not defeat forum non conveniens when the Texas court can condition dismissal on the foreign court’s acceptance. This reaffirms the utility of conditional dismissal tools under § 71.051(c).

C. Factor Two: Adequacy of the Alternate Forum

A forum is “adequate” if the parties “will not be deprived of all remedies or treated unfairly,” even if relief would differ from that available in a Texas court, as articulated in Pirelli Tire and Weatherford. Courts should avoid comparative analyses of foreign procedures and substantive law unless the foreign forum offers “no remedy at all”—a standard rooted in comity and elaborated in General Electric and ENSCO.

1. Differences in Remedies and Procedure Do Not Render Mexico Inadequate

The plaintiffs highlighted several features of Mexican law:

Unavailability of punitive damages and certain “survival-type” damages;
Unavailability of prejudgment interest;
No jury trials;
Different discovery mechanisms and a higher causation standard;
Availability of the “amparo” (a constitutional review process that could delay final resolution).

The Court holds that these differences do not make Mexico inadequate:

The absence of American-style punitive or survival damages, or prejudgment interest, corresponds to “lesser remedies,” not “no remedy at all.”
The lack of a jury and “American-style” discovery has already been rejected as a basis for finding Mexican courts inadequate in Pirelli Tire.
The availability of the amparo does not transform the Mexican system into one that deprives plaintiffs of all practical remedy.

The Court expressly warns against comparative procedural critiques, absent a situation where the foreign forum offers essentially no avenue of redress.

2. Comity and Mexican Judicial Reforms

In a brief but notable passage, the Court rebuffs plaintiffs’ suggestion that recent “judicial reforms” in Mexico would destabilize its judiciary, remarking that the argument is cursory and that comity counsels against such speculative critiques. This is a clear signal that Texas courts will not lightly declare a foreign system inadequate based on contested political or institutional developments abroad, especially on thin evidentiary support.

Consistent with In re Oceanografia, S.A. de C.V., 494 S.W.3d 728 (Tex. 2016), the Court reaffirms that Mexican law provides a meaningful remedy and an adequate forum.

D. Factor Three: Substantial Injustice to the Moving Party

Section 71.051(b)(3) asks whether maintaining the case in Texas would “work a substantial injustice” to Greyhound. The Court concludes that it would, largely because:

Most fact witnesses are in Mexico: Estrella Blanca employees and officers, other passengers, Mexican federal police who investigated, medical examiners, and possibly the bus driver (if ever located).
These witnesses are beyond the reach of Texas’s compulsory-process power; Texas courts cannot force them to attend trial.
There is no indication that Mexican courts would lack compulsory power over them; indeed, federal courts, such as in Instituto Mexicano del Seguro Social v. Zimmer Biomet Holdings, Inc., have acknowledged that Mexican courts can compel live testimony of witnesses in Mexico.

Although some evidence (e.g., the accident and autopsy reports) is documentary and arguably sufficient to establish liability and damages, the Court underscores a central fairness principle: Greyhound is entitled to:

challenge and contextualize those documents; and
obtain live testimony to explain events and records.

As Oceanografia and General Electric teach, even when “most” evidence is documentary, live witnesses are needed to explain and rebut that material. A promise to make some documents or witnesses available does not cure the lack of compulsory process over the “overwhelming” number of foreign witnesses.

The plaintiffs emphasized that Greyhound is headquartered in Texas and that some corporate witnesses are located in Dallas. The Court responds that this is true in many cases involving Texas-based companies, yet forum non conveniens dismissals have still been required in cases like ENSCO and General Electric. A few domestic witnesses do not outweigh the “overwhelming number of Mexican connections.”

E. Factor Four: Jurisdiction Over All Properly Joined Defendants

Section 71.051(b)(4) requires that the alternate forum be able to exercise jurisdiction over all properly joined defendants. The Court finds this requirement satisfied because:

Greyhound has agreed to submit to Mexican jurisdiction; and
Estrella Blanca and the bus driver reside in Mexico and are subject to Mexican courts’ jurisdiction.

Thus, all current defendants may be properly brought before Mexican courts, either by submission (Greyhound) or by domicile (Estrella Blanca and the driver).

F. Factor Five: Balance of Private and Public Interests

The fifth factor requires the court to weigh:

Private interests (convenience, ease of access to proof, costs, etc.); and
Public interests (court congestion, burden on local jurors, local interest in the controversy, and the forum’s familiarity with the governing law).

Both categories strongly favor Mexico.

1. Private Interests

For the same reasons supporting the “substantial injustice” finding, private-interest considerations (ease of access to proof, live testimony, costs of transporting evidence and witnesses, and compulsory process) weigh heavily toward a Mexican forum.

2. Public Interests and Choice of Law

On the public-interest side, a major consideration is which jurisdiction’s substantive law will govern the claims. For wrongful-death and personal-injury claims, Texas follows the “most significant relationship” test of the Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws, particularly § 146. Under that framework:

The default rule is that the law of the state where the injury occurred applies, unless another state has a more significant relationship.
Factors include: (1) where the injury occurred; (2) where the conduct causing the injury occurred; (3) residence, nationality, and place of business of the parties; and (4) where the parties’ relationship is centered.

Applying these:

Place of injury: Mexico.
Place of conduct: The crash and alleged negligent operation, training, and supervision occurred in Mexico.
Residences and places of business:
- Maria and her son: Alabama residents;
- Greyhound: Delaware corporation headquartered in Texas;
- Estrella Blanca and the driver: Mexico.
Center of the relevant relationships: The relationship between the plaintiffs, Estrella Blanca, and the driver is centered in Mexico; the relationship between Greyhound and the Granados family may center in Texas or Alabama. Overall, more of the operative relationships are Mexican.

The Court concludes that Mexican law governs the personal-injury and wrongful-death claims. The plaintiffs did not extensively brief choice of law for the contract and fraud claims; even assuming Texas law governs those, Mexican law still governs the bulk of the case, particularly the most fact-intensive claims.

This has several implications:

Trying the case in Mexico aligns the forum with the governing law, reducing the risk of misapplication and the need for complex foreign-law proof in a Texas court.
It avoids burdening Texas jurors with a predominantly foreign controversy whose substantive rules are foreign.
Mexico has a strong local interest in regulating its roads, carriers, and safety standards, especially for accidents occurring on Mexican soil.

The plaintiffs argued that Texas has a public interest in providing a forum to its companies like Greyhound to “redress their grievances.” The Court responds that:

Greyhound, the Texas-based company here, is the one seeking dismissal to a foreign forum;
The statute already reflects a strong Texas public policy by barring forum non conveniens dismissal when the plaintiff is a Texas legal resident or derivative claimant (§ 71.051(e)); that safeguard simply does not apply to non-Texas plaintiffs.

Consequently, the public-interest component also supports dismissal.

G. Factor Six: Duplication or Proliferation of Litigation

Finally, the Court finds no evidence that dismissal will cause “unreasonable duplication or proliferation of litigation.” The plaintiffs emphasized that the case had been litigated in Texas for several years and was nearly ready for trial, implying that starting anew in Mexico would duplicate effort.

The Court notes:

The plaintiffs have not demonstrated why their efforts (such as depositions and document discovery) cannot be reused in Mexico;
Some degree of duplication is inherent in any forum non conveniens dismissal and is not “unreasonable” in itself;
Greyhound filed its forum non conveniens motion timely under § 71.051(d); the time that has elapsed since then resulted from the trial court’s erroneous denial, not from dilatory tactics by Greyhound.

Thus, this factor, like all others, favors dismissal.

V. Judicial Admission and Waiver in the Forum Non Conveniens Context

A. Judicial Admission

The plaintiffs contended that Greyhound’s crossclaim against Estrella Blanca constituted a judicial admission that Texas was a proper forum. A judicial admission is:

“A clear, deliberate, and unequivocal factual allegation made in a live pleading and not pleaded in the alternative,” which “conclusively establishes the fact and bars the pleader from disputing it.” (Lake Jackson Med. Spa, Ltd. v. Gaytan, 640 S.W.3d 830, 839 (Tex. 2022)).

The plaintiffs pointed to two statements in Greyhound’s crossclaim:

An allegation that the trial court has jurisdiction over Estrella Blanca because it contracted in Texas with Greyhound to defend and indemnify Greyhound for claims and litigation brought in the United States based on Estrella Blanca’s conduct; and
An allegation that Dallas County is a proper venue because Estrella Blanca’s alleged breach of its contractual indemnity and defense obligations occurred there.

The Court rejects this argument for two fundamental reasons:

Relevance: These statements concern only the crossclaim—i.e., the indemnity obligations owing from Estrella Blanca to Greyhound for litigation “brought in the United States.” They do not concede that Texas is the appropriate or most convenient forum for the underlying tort case, which is the subject of the forum non conveniens motion.
Scope: Alleging that a Texas court has personal jurisdiction or that venue is proper for purposes of an indemnity claim is not equivalent to admitting that forum non conveniens dismissal is unavailable. Jurisdiction/venue and forum non conveniens are distinct inquiries.

Therefore, the crossclaim did not constitute a judicial admission regarding the propriety of Texas as the forum for the entire action.

B. Waiver of Forum Non Conveniens by Litigation Conduct

Plaintiffs also argued that by pursuing a crossclaim and proceeding in the litigation, Greyhound had waived its right to seek forum non conveniens dismissal.

Generally, waiver involves:

“The intentional relinquishment of a known right or intentional conduct inconsistent with claiming that right.” (In re Nationwide Ins. Co. of Am., 494 S.W.3d 708, 712 (Tex. 2016)).

The Court analogizes to the arbitration context, where a party may waive its right to arbitrate by “substantially invoking the judicial process to the other party’s detriment or prejudice.” See Nationwide; In re ADM Inv. Servs., Inc., 304 S.W.3d 371 (Tex. 2010); G.T. Leach Builders, LLC v. Sapphire V.P., LP, 458 S.W.3d 502 (Tex. 2015). In that setting:

Merely filing cross-actions does not necessarily waive arbitration rights (G.T. Leach);
Litigation conduct aimed at defending oneself and minimizing expenses, rather than exploiting the judicial forum to gain advantage, does not constitute substantial invocation.

Applying those principles, the Court holds:

Filing a crossclaim for indemnity in the face of a looming pleading deadline—especially after the trial court has already denied the forum non conveniens motion—does not contradict Greyhound’s assertion of that right.
The plaintiffs did not show prejudice from the crossclaim itself.

Therefore, Greyhound did not waive its forum non conveniens challenge.

VI. Complex Concepts Simplified

A. Forum Non Conveniens (FNC)

Forum non conveniens is a doctrine that allows a court, even when it has jurisdiction and venue are proper, to decline to hear a case if another forum is clearly more appropriate. The idea is to prevent unfairness or serious inconvenience when:

The dispute is closely tied to another country or state (where events and evidence are located); and
Trial in the current forum would impose undue hardship on the parties and the judicial system.

In Texas, for personal-injury and wrongful-death cases, this doctrine is governed by statute (§ 71.051).

B. “Available” vs. “Adequate” Foreign Forum

A foreign forum is available if the defendant can be sued there—i.e., if the foreign court has or will accept jurisdiction over the defendant (often satisfied by the defendant’s stipulation to appear there).
A foreign forum is adequate if it provides some meaningful opportunity for relief and does not unfairly deny remedies, even if its procedures or damages differ from U.S. practice. It need not offer the same upside that a U.S. court might offer; it simply cannot be illusory.

C. Conditional Dismissal

When dismissing for forum non conveniens, a Texas court can attach conditions (under § 71.051(c)), such as:

Requiring the defendant to appear and defend in the foreign forum;
Requiring the defendant to waive limitations defenses there;
Making dismissal contingent on the foreign court’s acceptance of the case, so that plaintiffs are not left with no forum at all.

These safeguards ensure that dismissal is fair to plaintiffs.

D. Mandamus

A writ of mandamus is an extraordinary appellate remedy used when a trial court has clearly abused its discretion and there is no adequate remedy by regular appeal. In forum non conveniens cases, Texas law allows mandamus when all statutory factors favor dismissal and the trial court nonetheless refuses to dismiss.

E. Judicial Admission

A judicial admission is a binding concession in a party’s pleading that:

Is clear, deliberate, and unequivocal;
Is not pleaded in the alternative; and
Concerns a fact that is relevant to and dispositive of an issue in the case.

Once made, the party generally cannot later contradict it.

F. Waiver by Litigation Conduct

A party may waive a procedural right (such as arbitration or possibly forum non conveniens) by acting in a way that:

Is inconsistent with asserting that right; and
Causes prejudice to the other party, who relied on that conduct.

Filing defensive pleadings or crossclaims to preserve indemnity rights, especially when forced by deadlines, is usually not enough to constitute such a waiver.

G. Compulsory Process

Compulsory process is the court’s power to require witnesses to appear and testify or to produce documents. A key question in forum non conveniens analysis is whether the chosen forum has effective compulsory process over the critical witnesses. If most witnesses are located abroad and cannot be compelled to attend, trying the case in that forum may be unfair.

H. “Amparo” in Mexican Law

An “amparo” is a form of constitutional review in Mexico, often used to challenge governmental acts or judicial decisions alleged to violate fundamental rights. It can function as an interlocutory form of relief, potentially prolonging litigation. However, its existence does not mean Mexican courts are inadequate; it is part of their procedural architecture.

VII. Impact and Significance

A. Reinforcing Mexico as a Proper Forum for Cross-Border Accidents

In re Greyhound reinforces and extends earlier Texas cases (such as Pirelli Tire, Bridgestone, Oceanografia) by again recognizing Mexico as an available and adequate forum for litigation stemming from accidents within its borders—particularly when:

The defendant stipulates to jurisdiction and waiver of limitations; and
The core events, evidence, and non-party witnesses are in Mexico.

This signals that transnational transportation accidents involving Texas-based companies, but occurring in Mexico with primarily Mexican witnesses, will often be redirected to Mexican courts.

B. Clarifying “Availability” and Rejecting Plaintiff Veto

The Court’s holding that a plaintiff’s refusal to consent to foreign jurisdiction is irrelevant to “availability” is particularly important. It ensures that:

Plaintiffs cannot unilaterally defeat otherwise proper forum non conveniens motions by simply declining to appear abroad;
“Availability” remains tied to whether defendants can be brought before the foreign court, as Texas precedent has long suggested.

This clarifies a potential ambiguity in the doctrine and strengthens the predictability of cross-border litigation strategy.

C. De Novo Review of Foreign Law and Uniformity Across Texas

By emphasizing de novo review of foreign law determinations, the Court ensures greater uniformity in how Texas courts treat foreign legal issues, including:

“Necessary party” rules;
The scope of joint-and-several liability; and
Availability of specific remedies in foreign courts.

Trial courts cannot insulate their forum non conveniens decisions by treating foreign-law expert disputes as pure “fact” questions. Appellate courts may independently examine and interpret foreign-law materials.

D. Safeguarding Defensive Crossclaims from Waiver

The Court’s treatment of Greyhound’s crossclaim as neither a judicial admission nor a waiver has practical consequences:

Defendants can file protective crossclaims (e.g., indemnity or contribution) without automatically forfeiting their right to seek forum non conveniens dismissal.
Particularly where a trial court has already denied a forum non conveniens motion, defendants can prudently protect their contractual rights without that conduct being used against them on appeal.

E. Comity and Respect for Foreign Judicial Systems

The Court’s refusal to deem Mexican courts “inadequate” based on structural differences and alleged reforms underscores a strong commitment to international comity. Texas courts:

Will not lightly second-guess the competence or stability of foreign judiciaries, especially on sparse or partisan records;
Are unlikely to conduct broad comparative analyses of foreign procedure unless the foreign system truly fails to offer any real remedy.

This approach provides reassurance to foreign courts and governments that Texas respects their legal systems, which in turn promotes cooperation in transnational litigation.

F. Emphasis on the Statutory Protection for Texas Residents

Finally, by invoking § 71.051(e) in response to plaintiffs’ policy arguments, the Court underscores that:

The Legislature has already balanced the interests of Texas residents and Texas-based companies;
Texas-resident plaintiffs (and their derivative claimants) enjoy special protection against dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds; but
Non-Texas plaintiffs, like the Alabama-resident Granados family, cannot claim that same policy shield.

This maintains the statute’s careful distinction between Texans and non-Texans in access to Texas courts for foreign-centered disputes.

VIII. Conclusion

In re Greyhound Lines, Inc. is a substantial refinement of Texas forum non conveniens law under § 71.051, especially in cross-border personal-injury and wrongful-death litigation. The Court:

Confirms that Mexico, with appropriate stipulations, is both an “available” and “adequate” forum for bus accidents occurring on its soil;
Reaffirms that all six statutory factors, when weighing decisively toward a foreign forum, require dismissal, enforceable by mandamus;
Clarifies that plaintiffs cannot defeat forum non conveniens by refusing to consent to foreign jurisdiction;
Emphasizes de novo appellate review of foreign law determinations under Rule 203, thereby ensuring legal uniformity;
Holds that defensive crossclaims for indemnity neither constitute judicial admissions about the proper forum nor waive the right to seek forum non conveniens dismissal; and
Reasserts the limited, comity-based role of comparative procedural critique when evaluating foreign forums.

As cross-border commerce and travel continue to generate litigation involving Texas-based entities and foreign accidents, In re Greyhound will provide a clear roadmap: focus on where the injury and conduct occurred, where the evidence and witnesses are located, which law governs, and whether the defendant is amenable to process abroad. When those factors align with a foreign jurisdiction—as they did with Mexico here—Texas courts will increasingly be expected to transfer the controversy to that forum, subject to sensible protective conditions.