A New Era — Yet the Old Principles Remain What We Can Trust

This blog post is an English translation of a Korean-language column the author contributed to the Korea Shipping Gazette in June 2026. Accordingly, in the event of any discrepancy arising from translation, the original Korean text shall prevail over this English version.

A wind turbine blade nearly 100 metres in length leaves port lying stretched out across the deck.

Wind turbine blades are no longer an unfamiliar cargo in the shipping industry. As wind power turbines grow ever larger, blades and towers become longer and heavier year after year, and not only dedicated project vessels but also general multi-purpose vessels and bulk carriers are mobilised for their carriage. A blade is not merely a “large cargo”; it is long and sensitive to wind, and it is a demanding project cargo in which even a slight misstep in stowage and lashing can cause serious damage to both the cargo and the vessel. Owing to its shape, such cargo is in many cases loaded on deck.

In maritime law, the fact that cargo “was loaded on deck” is not a mere question of where the cargo was placed; it is a significant legal event that alters the carrier’s liability, the cargo interest’s consent, the wording of the bill of lading, and the scope of insurance cover. Accordingly, the true risk of blade carriage may arise not only from the waves, the wind, and the lashing lines on deck, but at the very moment the statement that the cargo has been stowed on deck — a statement that ought to appear on the bill of lading — is omitted.

The Korean Commercial Code provides that the carrier shall compensate for damage arising from the loss of, damage to, or delay in delivery of the cargo unless it proves that it did not neglect to exercise due care in the receipt, loading, stowage, carriage, custody, discharge, and delivery of the cargo. The fact that “stowage” here constitutes one of the carrier’s core duties carries great weight in blade carriage, where stowage and lashing determine whether damage occurs. Meanwhile, Article 799(1) of the Korean Commercial Code renders void any special agreement that reduces or exempts the carrier’s duties or liability, yet Article 799(2) provides that paragraph (1) shall not apply where a statement to the effect that the cargo will be carried on deck is entered on the face of the bill of lading or other document evidencing the contract of carriage, and the cargo is in fact carried on deck. Accordingly, where the on-deck statement is entered on the face of the bill of lading and the cargo is in fact carried on deck, it also becomes possible for the carrier to shift the risks of deck cargo onto the cargo interest.

Two distinctions, however, must be drawn. First, obtaining the cargo interest’s “consent” to deck stowage and agreeing that the carrier shall be “exempted” from liability for damage arising from deck stowage are separate matters. The statement on the face of the bill merely evidences the fact that the cargo interest consented to deck stowage; it does not, in itself, amount to an agreement exempting the carrier from liability. Second, even where such an exemption agreement exists, its scope must be examined. The on-deck statement and the exemption clause merely make it possible to shift onto the cargo interest the risks inherent in the deck as a place of stowage; they do not, as a matter of course, exempt the carrier from liability for damage caused by the carrier’s own negligence in stowage and lashing. To exclude liability for such negligence as well, the exemption clause must clearly encompass it; otherwise, even where the on-deck statement has been duly entered, liability for breach of the duty of care in stowage remains with the carrier.

A single line in a contract of carriage may, conversely, push the carrier into even heavier liability. A clause commonly found in project cargo contracts — “any damage in transit shall be immediately repaired or re-performed, with the carrier bearing the cost” — may well be construed as an undertaking of no-fault, all-encompassing liability. What is more, such a clause not only enlarges the carrier’s liability but also carries the risk of rendering that liability irrecoverable under insurance. Accordingly, just as much care must be taken in entering the on-deck statement and the allocation of risk on the face of the bill of lading, attention must also be paid to contract-of-carriage wording by which the carrier inadvertently assumes no-fault liability.

Meanwhile, carriers readily assume that their P&I Club will, as a matter of course, handle cargo damage claims, but the insurance contract does not unconditionally cover every liability. IG P&I Clubs recommend that, when blades are loaded on deck, the contractual documents accurately reflect the mode of carriage and that the fact of deck stowage be clearly stated on the bill of lading. This is because, if deck stowage is not expressly stated, the carrier may simultaneously lose both its liability defences and its P&I cover. Furthermore, carrying such cargo on a vessel unsuited to the loading of wind power plant components may constitute a circumstance that alters the insured risk and shakes the very premise of the insurance cover. Under P&I rules and underwriting guidelines, the position is already established that, where the cargo is unfit for deck stowage in the first place, it may be excluded from cover even if the on-deck statement and the exemption wording are in place. It is therefore necessary to examine not only whether the fact of deck stowage has been entered on the transport document, but also whether the cargo was suitable for deck stowage in the first place.

Reducing the risks of carrying wind turbine blades does not end with the paperwork. It is precisely here that the area in which liability for negligent stowage remains, as discussed above, comes into play. Because blades are long, flexible, and present a large surface to the wind, whether damage occurs is determined almost entirely by the preparations made before loading. The stowage and lashing plan and the suitability of the structures supporting the blades are decisive; yet the crew, for their part, have no means of verifying the soundness of those structures, and that expertise generally resides with the shipper or the charterer. The supply of lashing materials and the lashing work itself are also frequently undertaken by stevedores engaged by the shipper or charterer, weakening the shipowner’s control — and this point is often where the trouble begins. Once the voyage is under way, if the vessel’s rolling and accelerations exceed the limits of the blade support structures, damage occurs in a chain reaction, and the long blades may even obstruct the view from the bridge. It is therefore necessary to secure evidence by having a surveyor attend before loading, and to inspect the lashings during the voyage and keep photographic records.

The carriage of wind turbine blades wears the outward appearance of a new industry, but in substance it is a traditional maritime law problem. For the carrier, it appears safest to enter on the bill of lading the on-deck statement together with, where possible, a clear allocation of risk; to check, at the same time, whether the exemption wording encompasses negligence in stowage and lashing, and whether the liability being assumed conflicts with the scope of P&I cover; and to appoint a surveyor so that the lashings and the suitability of the supporting structures are verified in advance, from the moment of loading. Conversely, where a casualty occurs, the cargo interest should closely examine its cause, together with whether the carrier breached its duty of care in stowage and what statements appear in the bill of lading or the contract of carriage.

Wind turbine blades stowed on deck symbolise clean energy. Beneath that enormous cargo, however, the old doctrines of maritime law lie just as they always have. Where was this cargo stowed? Who agreed to bear its risks? Does the bill of lading properly record those facts? Just as the cargo shifts when the lashings on board come loose, so too does liability shift when the wording of the bill of lading is loose. The newer the cargo, the safer it is to rely on the old principles.