The Shipping Law Blog
A Useful Guide to the World of Maritime Law

The Logistics of Transporting Specialized Cargo: Handling Sensitive or Human Remains

September 14, 2024

Transporting specialized cargo, particularly sensitive items such as human remains, is a delicate task that requires precision, care, and strict adherence to legal and ethical guidelines. Whether the remains are to be transported for burial, cremation, or forensic purposes, the logistics behind this sensitive process must prioritize respect, safety, and compliance with various regulations. This article explores the complexities of transporting human remains, focusing on regulations, methods of transportation, the challenges involved, and the role of communication and coordination.

Legal and Regulatory Requirements

Transporting human remains involves navigating a complex web of regulations that vary between countries, states, and even municipalities. International and domestic transport must comply with laws designed to protect public health and ensure the dignified handling of the deceased. The process typically requires death certificates, embalming certificates, and a transit permit. For international transportation, consular permits or affidavits from the destination country’s embassy may be needed.

Airlines and shipping companies also impose their own rules, often requiring the body to be embalmed or contained in hermetically sealed caskets. Some regions demand that remains be accompanied by a licensed funeral director, while others stipulate specific embalming techniques to meet health codes. The International Air Transport Association (IATA) provides guidelines on the packaging and documentation required for shipping human remains by air. Proper documentation is crucial for avoiding delays or refusals, as non-compliance can result in significant setbacks during transport.

Importance of Coordination and Communication

Effective coordination is essential for successfully transporting human remains. Funeral directors, transportation companies, airlines, and governmental authorities all play pivotal roles in ensuring that the transport process is smooth and respectful. A dedicated team is often responsible for coordinating all these efforts, ensuring that no detail is overlooked, and that the remains are treated with the utmost care throughout the journey.

Clear communication between all parties involved is equally important. The family of the deceased, the receiving funeral home, and transportation providers must be informed at every stage of the process. This transparency not only helps avoid misunderstandings but also provides peace of mind to grieving families. Each entity involved in the transportation process must be aware of the final destination’s requirements, including burial or cremation plans, legal documentation, and specific cultural or religious considerations.

Transportation Methods and Containers

The method of transporting human remains depends largely on the distance and the mode of travel. Air transport is the most common for long distances, especially when transporting internationally. The remains are typically placed in a coffin or cremation urn, depending on the family’s wishes and the regulations of the destination. If transporting by air, most airlines require the remains to be in a casket within a wooden or metal shipping container, ensuring both dignity and security during transit.

Land transport via hearse is another method for shorter distances, such as within a city or between neighboring states. In cases where time is not an immediate factor, ground transportation offers a cost-effective and often less complicated option. Trained funeral home staff are responsible for ensuring that the remains are handled with care and that the vehicle used for transport is appropriate for the situation.

Special containers, such as hermetically sealed caskets or combination units, are often mandated by law to prevent leakage or contamination. These containers are designed to respect the deceased’s dignity while also meeting sanitary requirements. Temperature control may also be necessary, particularly if the remains are not embalmed and require preservation over long distances.

Challenges in Transporting Sensitive Cargo

Transporting human remains presents several logistical challenges that extend beyond typical cargo transportation. Time sensitivity is one of the most pressing issues, as delays could cause deterioration, even in embalmed bodies. For international transport, the time required to obtain the necessary documentation from consulates and government agencies can sometimes result in additional delays. It is not uncommon for bureaucratic procedures to slow the transport process, particularly in cases where the death occurred in a remote location or in a country with complex legal requirements.

Airlines have specific regulations regarding the times at which they will accept human remains for transport, and flights may be limited. Additionally, the costs associated with the transportation of human remains can be substantial, considering the necessity for specialized containers, embalming procedures, and the required permits. Coordination with the family is crucial during this process to ensure that emotional stress is minimized while logistical arrangements are properly managed.

Weather conditions, particularly in extreme climates, can also complicate transportation plans. Flights may be delayed, and land transport may become hazardous, particularly if roads are affected by snow, ice, or other environmental factors. These unexpected delays can impact funeral or cremation timelines, creating additional emotional and logistical strain for families.

Moreover, technology has greatly enhanced communication in this process. From tracking systems that allow funeral directors to monitor the location of remains during air transport to digital platforms that expedite the filing of necessary documentation, modern tools play a critical role in streamlining the logistics of handling sensitive cargo.

Transporting human remains is not just a logistical challenge; it is a sensitive task that requires great care and professionalism. From navigating the complexities of legal regulations to choosing the appropriate transportation methods and containers, each step must be carefully managed. The emotional impact on the family and the need to adhere to ethical guidelines make this a process that demands a high level of coordination, respect, and transparency.

Whether the journey involves international air travel or a short drive to a nearby funeral home, those responsible for transporting human remains must ensure that every aspect is handled with dignity. The role of funeral directors, transportation experts, and government authorities is crucial in creating a seamless experience that honors the deceased and provides comfort to the grieving. In the end, the logistics of transporting specialized cargo, particularly human remains, is not just about moving an item from one location to another—it is about honoring life, tradition, and the memories left behind.

 

What is the difference between an oil rig and an oil platform?

August 27, 2018

You often hear reference to oil rigs and platforms, and sometimes people will say, that wasn’t a platform, it was a rig; or the opposite. So why do the terms cause so much confusion? As usual, it is because there is some crossover in the terminology. But if you understand the underlying mechanics, you will be much clearer.

The short answer:
~ A platform is a permanent structure fixed to the seabed.
~ A rig is moveable platform, which is moved into place by barges and then secured in each location temporarily.

The long answer:
1. Platforms
Firstly, let’s look at platforms.  They have three main parts; the jacket (the legs which are secured in the sea/ocean), the deck (a large flat surface area), and the modules (crew quarter blocks, drilling aparatus, storage containers etc. which are fixed to the deck).

A basic fixed platform is fixed in a permanent position on the seabed with anchors (as above) and is not intended to move. It provides a long-term, stable facility from which a lot of oil can be produced because it can host so much equipment and crew. As a result, they tend to be build in locations with known long-term oil deposits.

However, there are other types of platform which are similar. Compliant Towers (below) are like fixed platforms, but have more narrow, flexible jackets, meaning they move with the wind and waves. There are also tension-leg, subsea and SPAR varieties, as well as numerous other iterations and combinations of the above.

2. Rigs
Generally rig refers to a jackup rig. This is a moveable platform with very tall legs, which can be jacked up and down, meaning it can be towed into place and then lowers its legs into the seabed, creating a stable but temporary platform from which drilling or other work can take place. They tend to be used for smaller oil deposits and shallower water.

So why the confusion?
Well, the thing is, as you’ll see from the above, jackup rigs, are moveable platforms, so you might see an incident where, for example, their platform is damaged. This would lead to references to ‘the platform’. In the same way, fixed drilling platforms will have equipment onboard called the drill rig (the gear which actually drills into the seabed). So the word rig could be used in reference to a platform sometimes too.

Remember that UKSTC is not upheld in Australia!

August 9, 2018

The UK Standard Conditions for Towage and Other Services (UKSTC) is probably the world’s most popular towage agreement. The 1986 version is the latest one and probably the most popular. It is used, sometimes by other names or in similar versions, worldwide, and is the go-to contract for people asked to tow other vessels. This is because it protects you from liability effectively.




The point is that small tugs often tow much, much more valuable vessels. They should not be responsible for damage done to them. Therefore, the conditions include (at 4(a)) a full exclusion of liability for damage to the other vessel, to the tug, to other property and for ‘any claim by a person not a party to [the] agreement for loss or damage of any description whatsoever‘.
So, a very wide exclusion. However, Australia is a good example of a country where the user needs to be careful. The courts in Australia have said that an exclusion clause of this sort is not allowable under Australian law (the Koumala)*. What is the effect? The court will strike the clause out, and you will return to a basic common law type allocation of liabilities, where you are fully liable in the event of negligence.
Can this be avoided? It can. The trick is to not have an exclusion clause (which is not allowed) but instead have a contractual limitation of liability clause (which is allowed). Limiting liability for these type of claims to, say AUS 1 Dollar would be such a nominal sum that the court might say the effect is to make the clause an exclusion of liability in all but name. Therefore, the recommended advice is to amend the conditions to limit liability to the value of the services provided, which might be a few hundred or thousand dollars.
It is important to remember, if doing this, that incorporation will be all important. There is no point having a perfectly amended contract if it is sitting in your office or available on request. You must make sure that, at the point of contracting, the consumer of the services is aware of the conditions as amended.


* PNSL Berhad v. Dalrymple Marine Services Pty. Ltd. and Others [2007] QSC (Helman J., 19 April 2007)

Beware Collision Time Bars: the “SB Seaguard” Case

October 13, 2015

Most maritime countries in the world apply a two year time bar to collision claims (by virtue of some form of ratification to the Brussels Collision Conventions 1910). In other words, where a vessel collides with another, and causes damage, the Claimant must issue proceedings before the local courts within two years. If they fail to do so, they lose their right of claim completely. The time limit is relatively short, compared to the six years general contract and tort time limit in place under English law, and that of many other states. A recent case has shed further light on the pitfalls for Claimants in missing the time limit.

Captain steering tug out at sea, view of ships bridge and view through window

In the English High Court case: CDE S.A. v Sure Wind Marine Limited (SB SEAGUARD c/w ODYSSÉE), 2015, handed down in April 2015, the Claimants’ catamaran yacht was at berth in Ramsgate, UK, when she was struck and damaged by an offshore tug, coming into the harbour to berth. The accident appeared to be entirely the fault of the offshore vessel, whose Master had lost control of the ship on entering the harbour.

The Claimants indicated that they would make a claim of hundreds of thousands of Euros, for repairs, but failed to take action until after the two year time bar had elapsed. When they did present their claim, the defendant’s P&I Club merely responded noting that their claim was now time barred under English Law. The Claimants appointed lawyers and took their claim all the way to the High Court, making an application for the course to exercise its discretion and extend the time bar. The High Court did not agree, and dismissed the application and the case.

The judgment confirms some solid principles in respect of collision time bars. Although the court has a discretion to extend the time limit, it may only do so where there is a ‘good reason’. The following arguments will not be considered a good reason; carelessness, the defendant has a poor defence, negotiations are continuing, the defendant was unaware of the time limit.

Two important reminders arise from the case, in respect of collision claims.

1. Where you have a collision claim which may not be settled within the two year period you must ensure that you have either a) an express extension or waiver of the time limit, or b) a clear admission of full liability. In the latter case the court will consider that the parties had agreed to settle the claim, subject merely to a discussion on quantum. In other words, the time bar is likely to be considered to be waived.

2. If, for any reason, the time bar is mistakenly missed, once this fact is discovered, action must be taken immediately. Specifically, the claim should be filed at court, and an application for a discretionary extension of time should be made.

A Beginners’ Guide to Sailing

May 14, 2015

Learning to sail is one of the best ways to familiarise yourself with the basics of operating a vessel on water. Many of the terms draw across to the shipping industry. 

It was therefore an opportunity too good to miss when the the East Fremantle Yacht Club of Perth, Australia offered to provide us with a beginner’s guide to sailing, which can be downloaded via the link below. 

Here is an extract on the beginners’ language of sailing, which will no doubt be of interest to readers:




A Brief Guide to Liquidated Damages

April 21, 2015

We often receive queries from readers at the Shipping Law Blog, and today we received one from a non-lawyer, who had been asked to confirm whether one of their contracts contained a ‘liquidated damages clause‘.
(Image Credit: Western Area Power)

To non-lawyers this language is typical of the legalese used by lawyers, to refer to what is really a very simple concept; in short it means, does the contract contain specific compensation amounts payable.

When two parties enter into a contract they agree to both do something for each other (consideration). Normally, in the maritime industry, one party pays and the other performs a service. If either party does not maintain their side of the deal they are considered to have breached the contract. 

Only very serious (fundamental / repudiatory) breaches will actually bring the contract to an end. So, in general, the legal position is that the party who has breached a part of the contract must pay the other compensation (damages) for that breach and the contract continues. Normally, when such a breach happens, the parties have to agree on how much compensation should be paid, or the case goes to arbitration or court to decide. 

Litigation costs an awful lot of money and in cases like a long-term hire agreement for a vessel (charterparty), where there will probably be many small breaches, it is better for the parties to agree beforehand how much compensation is due for different types of breach. These amounts are then inserted in the contract and becasue they are damaged which have been refined to specific (normally USD) amounts, they are known as liquidated damages. 

Example

A common example would be demurrage. When you hire your ship, you might say that the ship will spend 1 day at the load port and 1 day at the discharge port. The charterer therefore agrees that they will load the cargo and discharge the cargo at their chosen ports within this timeframe. If the vessel stays in port longer (say because the Charterers are slow to get the cargo trucked to of from the ship), the vessel owner will incur additional charges, fees and delays. Therefore a clause in the charterparty may say that demurrage (i.e. delay by the charterer) will be charged at USD 500 per day, or pro rata per hour. When there is a delay of 3 hours, this becomes payable, without an argument as to whether it is reasonable.

Penalty Clause

The amount cannot be any amount, but must broadly reflect the additional costs of the breach on the party who has suffered. Otherwise the English Courts would likely consider the clause a penalty clause, which would be unenforceable under English Law. The main case law on this area dates back to 1915 (Dunlop Pneumatic Tyre Co Ltd vs New Garage & Motor Co Ltd), and outlines when a liquidated damages clause will be considered a penalty clause.

A Visual Guide to Tug Boat Types

April 2, 2015

Tugboats are one of the most easily recognised of all vessel types, and have found a popular place in the public’s eyes, even appearing in a number of Children’s books and television programmes. However, there are a number of common varieties it is useful to recognise if you are working in the industry; each has some distinctive features, as set out briefly below.

–


The Common Harbour Tug

The workhorse of all local and national harbours, these versatile little tugs are able to help with all kinds of activities in port, as well as berthing, towing vessels out and potentially salvaging vessels in distress. Identify them by their small size and all-round basic fendering (often tyres) which shows the variety of jobs they may have to assist with.

Image credit: simplonpc.co.uk

–


AHTS (Anchor Handling Towage Supply)

These large, advanced tugs are favourites of the offshore industry, these tugs can provide all the services required to oil rigs and platforms, including towing them into place, setting their anchors, and carrying goods and cargo as well as crew to and from the vessel. Identify them by their very large size, gear (cranes onboard for lifting), and open-backed stern (for taking anchors onboard).

Image credit: aluminiumnowturkey.com

–


Pusher tug / River Tug

These vessels principally operate in sheltered inland waters, and tend to push (rather than tow) other vessels. Because they typically push barges or regular vessels by their flat stern, they are usually unusual looking with a flat front.  

Image Credit: GPIA.com

–


ATB Tugs

Articulated Tug and Barge (ATB) combinations are custom built sets of tugs and barges which go together. Normally the tug slots into the back of the barge for a more secure fit. Because they are often pushing large unmanned barges from behind, they need to have their bridge set very high, to see over the front of the barge; hence the unusual ‘high neck’ appearance. These vessels are more common in the USA.

Image credit: towmasters.wordpress.com

–


ASD Tugs

Azimuth Stern Drive (ASD) tugs do not have a rudder and propeller system like most vessels. Instead they are fitted with an advanced propeller which itself can turn direction, normally with one or two such propellers fitted at the stern of the vessel. This gives the tug much improved and more efficient manoeuvrability in the water, which allows them to better help other vessels. It also reduces running costs. However, these vessels remain expensive to build so look out for top-spec, modern-design, with more of an even all around freeboard tugboats.

Image credit: products.damen.com

–


SDM Tugs

Ship Docking Module (SDM) tugs are, as the name implies, specifically designed to help other vessels dock in sheltered harbours or marinas. They have a very low and wide freeboard, so they can get up close to any section of the hull of larger ships without damaging them. They are also extremely nimble and have two Azimuth (360 degree) thrusters at either end, so they can spin 360, or speed up very quickly then move the opposite direction. They have a patented shape like a floating saucer, and because they are patented by one marine company (Seabulk), they are not as frequently spotted as other harbour craft.

Image: ebdg.com





Emerging Incident: Sinking of the fishing trawler “Dalniy Vostok” in Russia (1 April 2015)

April 2, 2015

A large Russian fish factory, the “Dalniy Vostok”, sank off the remote east coast of Russia on Wednesday 1 April 2015, resulting in a very high number of casualties.

Vessel: Fishing Trawler “Dalniy Vostok” / “Dal’nij Vostok” (IMO No. 5085653)

P & I Club: Unconfirmed (but thought to be Ingosstrakh)


GT: 23,102


Build: 1963 (52 years old)

Flag: Russia


Operator: Magellan LLC


Numbers Onboard: 132 crew of Russian, Burmese, Ukranian, Lithuanian and Vanuatuan nationality.


Voyage: Working off the Kamchatka peninsula.


Incident: The vessel appears to have been trawling a very heavy (and possibly overweight) dragnet, when she may have struck ice or some mother object, resulting in the vessel being pulled quickly beneath the surface.

Emerging Incident: Fred Olsen Cruise Ship “Boudicca” on fire off the coast of Spain (25 January 2015)

January 25, 2015

Early reports are outlining an incident onboard the cruise ship “Boudicca”, which appears to have gone on fire whilst sailing off the coast of Spain as part of a Mediterranean cruise.



Vessel: Cruise Ship “Boudicca” (IMO No. 7218395)


P & I Club: Skuld

GT: 28,551


Build: 1973 (42 years old)

Flag: Bahamas

Operator: Fred Olsen Cruise Lines Ltd.

Numbers Onboard: up to 850 passengers potentially onboard. 

Voyage: Unknown.

Incident: Further details are awaited on the extent of the incident. At present there are reports from passengers that a fire began in the Engine room at 4am, whilst the vessel was sailing off the coast of Morocco. The ship took on a list, and passengers were awoken and told to put on emergency life jackets. The vessel is now thought to be operating under auxiliary engines and sailing towards Lanzarote.

Emerging Incident: ” Hoegh Osaka ” Vessel Grounded near Southampton (4 January 2015)

January 4, 2015

In what seems to have been a disastrous few weeks for the Scandinavian P&I Clubs the huge 51,770 GT “Hoegh Osaka” car carrier, which we understand is entered with Gard, has run aground on a sand bank whilst leaving Southampton for Bremerhaven. 


When there are cars onboard it is common for the manufacturer’s to refuse to honour the warranty, so they often have to be destroyed. As a result the insurance claim could be huge, even if she is refloated successfully. 

How such a modern, advanced ship, with such a high-value cargo onboard, can run aground on a fairly routine voyage to the UK, is not yet known. Thankfully all the 25 crewmembers have now been safely rescued.


Vessel: Car Carrier “Hoegh Osaka” (IMO No. 9185463)

 P & I Club: Gard


GT: 51,770


 Build: 2000 (14 years old)

 Flag: Singapore

 Operator: Hoegh Autoliners AS

 Numbers Onboard: 25 crew

 Voyage: Southampton, UK to Bremerhaven, Germany.


Incident: The vessel was laden with a mixed cargo of vehicles and departed Southampton around 8pm on Saturday night (3 Jan. 2015). Whilst navigating Bramble Bank she appears to have veered towards portside and grounded on the sand, taking on a 45 degree list. All crew were safely disembarked eventually and salvage efforts are understood to be underway. 

The Shipping Law Blog

For ten years the Shipping Law Blog has aimed to provide a simple, down-to-earth guide to the world of international shipping and maritime law.

If you have any questions or suggestions please get in touch at editor@theshippinglawblog.com .

Most Popular Posts

A Beginners’ Guide to Sailing

Learning to sail is one of the best ways to familiarise yourself with the basics of operating a vessel on water. Many of the terms draw across to the shipping

A Brief Guide to Liquidated Damages

We often receive queries from readers at the Shipping Law Blog, and today we received one from a non-lawyer, who had been asked to confirm whether one of their contracts

Search The Shipping Law Blog
Questions & Answers
Maritime Disasters
MARITIME STYLE GUIDE
Maritime Law Links
Visitor Loaction Map
Archives
Archives
Copyright & Legal

1. All content reserved copyright of theshippinglawblog.com 2015, unless stated otherwise. 2. Header image credit: Paul Gorbould, ‘Leader on Ice’ (Flickr). 3. This website is not intended to provide legal advice and is for interest only. The author does not guarantee the accuracy of any content and, as always, recommends that appropriate professional legal advice is sought by anyone requiring assistance with a shipping law problem. 4. If you have any ideas, recommendations or other queries in relation to the blog please e-mail me at webmaster@theshippinglawblog.com.