New cargo, old principles: wind turbine blades carried on deck under Korean law
A wind turbine blade nearly 100 metres long leaves port lying along the deck. Where it sits is not a stowage decision but a legal one: it moves the carrier’s liability, the cargo owner’s consent, the wording of the bill of lading and the reach of the insurance. The real risk of blade carriage may begin the moment a line of wording is left out.
This blog post is an English translation of a Korean-language column the author contributed to the Korea Shipping Gazette on 8 June 2026. The translation is the author’s own; in the event of any discrepancy, the Korean original prevails.
A cargo that is not simply large
A single wind turbine blade — the vane of a wind power generator — close to 100 metres in length leaves port lying at full length along the deck. Wind turbine blades are by now no unfamiliar cargo in the shipping industry. As wind turbines grow larger, the blades and towers become longer and heavier year by year, and not only dedicated project vessels but ordinary multipurpose ships and bulk carriers are drawn into carrying them. A blade is not simply a large cargo but a difficult project cargo, long and sensitive to wind, such that even a slight departure in stowage and securing can cause serious damage both to the cargo and to the ship. Cargo of this kind is, by its shape, often loaded on deck.
In maritime law, the fact that goods have been “stowed on deck” is not a simple question of where they are placed. It is a legal event of consequence, one that alters the carrier’s liability, the cargo owner’s consent, the wording of the bill of lading and the scope of insurance cover. The real risk of blade carriage may therefore arise not only from the waves, the wind and the lashings on deck; it may perhaps begin at the moment when the wording that ought to be entered in the bill of lading, to the effect that the goods have been stowed on deck, is left out.
Stowage is a core duty, and the deck-cargo exception to it
The Commercial Act provides that, unless the carrier proves that it has not neglected due care as regards the receipt, loading, stowage, carriage, keeping, discharge and delivery of the goods, the carrier is to compensate the loss arising from loss of, damage to, or delay in delivery of the goods. That stowage is among the carrier’s core duties here weighs heavily in blade carriage, where stowage and securing determine whether damage occurs.
Yet while one provision of the Commercial Act treats as void a special agreement reducing or exempting the carrier’s duties or liability, another provides that the first does not apply where the face of a bill of lading or other document evidencing the contract of carriage states that the goods are to be carried on deck and they are in fact carried on deck. Accordingly, where the face of the bill of lading carries a statement to the effect that the goods are stowed on deck and they are in fact so carried, it also becomes possible for the carrier to place the risks of deck cargo on the cargo owner.
Consent to deck carriage is not the same as an exemption
Two things must, however, be distinguished. The first is that having obtained consent to deck carriage and having agreed to be exempted from loss arising out of deck carriage are separate matters. The statement on the face of the bill shows only that the cargo owner consented to deck carriage; it does not of itself constitute an agreement exempting the carrier.
The second is that, even where there is such an agreement to exempt, the extent of its reach must be examined. A deck statement and an exemption clause allow the carrier to place on the cargo owner only those risks inherent in the deck as a place of stowage; they do not as a matter of course exempt even loss caused by the carrier’s own fault in stowage and securing. To exclude liability for that fault as well, the exemption wording must clearly cover it, and if it does not, then even where deck carriage has been lawfully stated, liability for breach of the duty of care in stowage remains with the carrier.
When a single line of the contract makes matters worse
A single line of the contract of carriage may instead push the carrier into a heavier liability. That is because a clause common in project cargo contracts, that “damage in the course of carriage is to be repaired and reinstated immediately and the carrier is to bear the cost”, may, if care is not taken, be construed as an undertaking to assume liability in full and without fault. Such a clause, moreover, not only enlarges the carrier’s liability but also carries the risk of leaving that liability unrecoverable under insurance. Quite as much care is therefore needed over contract of carriage wording by which strict liability is inadvertently assumed as over entering the deck carriage and risk allocation wording on the face of the bill of lading.
A policy of insurance does not cover every liability
Carriers, on the other hand, readily assume that the P&I insurer will as a matter of course handle a cargo damage claim, but a policy of insurance does not unconditionally cover every liability. Foreign P&I insurers recommend that, when blades are loaded on deck, the contractual documents should accurately reflect the manner of carriage and the bill of lading should clearly state the fact of deck carriage. This is because, if deck carriage is not stated, the carrier may lose its defences to liability and its P&I cover at the same time.
Further, carrying these cargoes in a ship unsuited to loading components of wind power generating equipment may be a circumstance that alters the insured risk and unsettles the very premise of the cover. Under the terms and underwriting guidelines of P&I insurance, the position has already taken hold that, where the cargo was unsuited to deck carriage from the outset, cover may be excluded even though there is a deck statement and an exemption clause. It is necessary, therefore, to examine not only whether the fact of deck carriage has been entered in the transport document, but also whether the cargo was suited to deck carriage in the first place.
The risk does not end with the paperwork
Reducing the risks of wind turbine blade carriage does not end with the documents. This is precisely the area, seen above, in which liability for fault in stowage remains. Blades are long and flexible and present a large area to the wind, so whether damage occurs is all but determined by the preparation before loading. The stowage and securing plan and the suitability of the structures supporting the blades are the crux; yet the crew have no means of verifying the soundness of those structures, and that knowledge generally lies with the shipper or the charterer. The supply of securing materials and the securing work itself are also in many cases handled by stevedores on the shipper’s or charterer’s side, which weakens the owner’s control, and this is frequently where the trouble starts. Once the voyage is under way, if the ship’s rolling and accelerations exceed the limits of the blade support structures, damage occurs in a chain, and a long blade may also obstruct the view from the bridge. It is necessary, accordingly, to secure evidence through the attendance of surveyors before loading, and to check the securing during the voyage and keep a photographic record.
Wind turbine blade carriage has merely put on the outward form of a new industry; in substance it is a traditional maritime law problem. For the carrier, it appears the safe course to state clearly in the bill of lading, along with a statement to the effect that the goods are to be carried on deck, and so far as possible the allocation of risk as well, while checking at the same time whether that exemption wording covers fault in stowage and securing, and whether the liability being assumed conflicts with P&I cover, and to appoint surveyors so as to verify the securing and the suitability of the structures in advance, from the time of loading. The cargo side, conversely, will need to examine closely, should a casualty occur, the cause of it together with whether the carrier was in breach of its duty of care in stowage, and what entries appear in the bill of lading or the contract of carriage.
Conclusion
A wind turbine blade loaded on deck is a symbol of clean energy. Beneath that vast cargo, however, the old doctrines of maritime law lie exactly where they always have. Where was this cargo loaded; who agreed to bear the risk of it; does the bill of lading properly record that fact. Just as cargo shifts when the securing on board works loose, liability shifts too when the wording of the bill of lading is slack. The newer the cargo, the safer it is to lean on the old principles.
K. M. Choi is a partner at Law Offices Choi & Kim, qualified in the Republic of Korea, with over ten years in shipping disputes, marine insurance and major casualties in Korean waters. He can be reached at kmchoi@choikim.com or on LinkedIn.
This article describes Korean law and practice in general terms and is not advice on the law of any other jurisdiction. The law is stated as at the date of the original Korean publication and may since have changed, and nothing here creates a lawyer–client relationship.