Braveheart, Billboards, and the Truth

We’ve all seen the movie or at the very least heard of it. Claymore swords and kilts vs. mounted knights in armor. Blue face paint, bagpipes, and nudity vs. stuffy English villains in large castles. The age-old tale of the fight for freedom against a seemingly invincible oppressor. Mel Gibson butchering a Scottish accent. The movie “Braveheart” has reached levels of fame that put the film into the category of commonplace and most viewers assume, understandably so, that the facts presented in the movie are at least somewhat historically accurate. They’d be wrong. In fact, “Braveheart” is for me the leading example of what I call Hollywood-ized history. Films “based on a true story” that are in fact not based on anything historical save one event or, in this case, a general time-period.

So how does this relate to legal advertising and company materials like training and safety manuals? Simple: personal injury attorneys bending the truth in advertising to create a more interesting narrative and companies failing to match up a story to the facts both have negative impacts in the short and long term. By misconstruing characters, events, and details, advertising and company materials can trend away from useful resources to information that misleads the public and potentially harms the corporation’s image.

However, before the correlation can be drawn, it’s important to understand just what it is that a history nerd like myself takes issue with in the film and for the sake of brevity, I’ve picked two broad topics that embody the orchestra of errors throughout: character misrepresentation and ignoring the details. The character misrepresentation is best represented by the title, which is in and of itself wrong. “Braveheart” was not the nickname for William Wallace but the nickname for King Robert the Bruce, a much cooler version of Wallace, who actually defeated the English at Bannockburn and actually unified a divided, warring Scotland, AND actually confirmed one of the first modern Scottish independent states via the Treaty of Northampton. We’re talking about a guy who got the nickname “Braveheart” because he was so upset he didn’t get to go crusading with his buddies during the Reconquista that before he died, he made one of his knights swear to take his literal heart from Scotland to Spain and throw it at his adversaries in battle, not for the effect but on principle. Devoted guy. Serious about his religion. Loved Scotland. Used a warhammer. Awesome. Yet, people credit Wallace with most of these achievements and assume you confused Robert Downey Jr. and Bruce Banner when you say “Robert the Bruce.” Through the lens of a law student, this problem can be seen in legal advertising today. Exaggerated advertising that plays on the fears of the general public leads to a misconception about the “characters” at play in your typical lawsuit.

The second major problem with the film is the issue of attention to detail. Things like depicting the film’s climactic battle, the Battle of Stirling Bridge, but forgetting to include a bridge anywhere in the battle. Or having the Scots in the movie wear belted tartan (a plaid design unique to Scotland) when such designs didn’t exist until hundreds of years after the real Wallace died. Or the fact that the Scots are wearing kilts and belted tartan at all when the real Scottish army at the time fought armored and with massive spears in an incredibly stubborn, static, but awesome formation called a “schiltron.” That’s right, the Scots decided the best way to combat cavalry at the time was to stand completely static in circles made up of groups of 20-30 armored men holding a bunch of pikes like an army of bad-tempered giant, autonomous, medieval nightmare hedgehog-tanks and basically beg the English to charge at them full speed. I don’t want to meet the person who thinks Mel Gibson and Co. dressing up as the Blue Man Group in kilts and attacking armored knights with farming tools is a better story. It simply does not hold a candle to what really happened. Anybody doubting this is welcome to grab a few buddies, suit up in armor, and play chicken with a herd of stallions. The lack of attention to detail seemingly produced a silver screen classic but a very real argument exists that the true story of “Braveheart” would have been even better. Such is the case with attention to detail in company materials.

Just as familiar as “Braveheart” is to the general public, so too are the billboards and advertisements showing trucks plowing into totaled vehicles or ominous visuals of eighteen wheelers intended to scare the viewer. They usually feature a suit-clad attorney angrily glaring at the camera or onto the highway with the fill-in-the-blank slogan: “Injured in [type of accident]? Call [law firm number] and we’ll fight for you!” These types of ads are easy to poke fun at but are incredibly effective at communicating the general point that big vehicles that transport goods sometimes can be scary. The results speak for themselves as juries are more and more willing to return astronomical verdicts for minor injuries. Personal injury lawyers then take those verdicts and portray themselves even more so as a protector of the people from the supposed danger of trucks. This is not to say that all plaintiff’s advertising is misleading - it’s not. In fact, some of this plaintiff’s work is both good and necessary. The problem arises when intentions shift more toward the outcome of telling a story and away from making sure that story is true and accurate. Just like with “Braveheart,” the danger is a public equipped with preconceived notions that are somewhat misleading if not entirely inaccurate.

Hiring and firing processes, training and safety manuals, and a corporation’s public image are about as important to the longevity and success of a transportation company as a good business plan. In the current climate where juries are willing, if not eager, to deliver a nuclear verdict, staying true to the details is essential. It can be easy to start idealizing training and safety processes in the sphere of transportation due to the risk involved with operating in that same sphere. It can be easy to “forget the bridge” and leave out aspects of the hiring or firing process because it doesn’t look great in writing. It can be easy, almost tempting, to inflate the corporation's approach to business for the purposes of public consumption. These practices, however, only serve to put a company at greater risk by articulating a standard that should be adhered to and then failing to meet that standard. There is no quicker way to admit fault or guilt than by admitting it and while this sounds simple, it can be a bit harder to see in practice.

No matter what legalese a judge or attorney may use during a trial, juries will always look for discernable language that helps them determine the standard by which to hold a defendant accountable. They don’t speak the alien language lawyers speak. They speak like normal people. Thus, it becomes exponentially harder to defend yourself from a “bad company” narrative when you’ve given the jury a plain-English standard that isn’t being met. There are no guarantees in the law but generally people appreciate the truth, unvarnished and are less inclined to listen when they feel they are being misled. Just make sure that truth is one you don’t mind telling. Take a look at your daily operations and if there are problem areas, fix them. Ask questions, self-audit, and take the extra step necessary to make sure that when and if the story has to be told about your company, it’s a story you want told.

In summary, this article should serve as a fun reminder that over-analyzation can be a good thing. Yes, Braveheart is a movie. And yes, this may sound like a history nerd’s over-analysis. But the point stands: the truth, even when it's messier, is often more compelling—and certainly more defensible. Whether in a courtroom or on a billboard, stories have power. The real characters and the real details matter. Companies, like individuals, are judged not just by their intentions but by their actions. When the story gets too far ahead of the facts, it becomes a liability. So take a moment. Revisit your materials. Re-examine your practices. And make sure the story you’re telling is the truth—because that’s the one that holds up best, on screen or in court.

If you have questions about this article, contact Caleb Setliff (csetliff@setlifflaw.com) or Steve Setliff (ssetliff@setlifflaw.com) at 804-377-1261. Caleb clerked for the law firm last summer and graduated from Liberty University School of Law in May - he will sit for the bar in July.