Danger score versus ER volume
Danger score versus ER volume
According to CPSC NEISS 2005-2024, Chain Saws ranks #137 of 838 by danger score (41/100) at ER-volume #96 of 838 (27,648/yr). They are not the same ranking.
- #137
- danger rank of 838
- #96
- ER-volume rank of 838
- 41/100
- danger score
- 27,648/yr
- estimated ER visits (avg)
Danger score combines injury volume, hospitalization, fatality, and five-year trend. ER volume is the average annual NEISS estimate alone. Rank 1 is highest on each list.
Where this category's danger score sits nationally
Danger score (41/100) across 838 scored CPSC product categories
41 Higher than most more dangerous than 79% of 838 product categories
scored CPSC product categories, bucketed by value
Each bar is a band; taller bars hold more product categories. The dashed line + filled bar mark this entry. Hover or tap any bar for its full count and share, and where it sits relative to this entry.
Source CPSC NEISS, PlainSafety danger-score model · 2024
Composite verdict
Composite Safety Score: 71/100
One verdict blending 4 independently-sourced dimensions from two separate CPSC systems, each benchmarked against all 838 scored product categories by percentile rather than raw value, so no single huge-volume category can dominate the scale.
| Dimension | Value | National percentile | Weight applied | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Injury severity (hospitalization + fatality blend) | 6 | 51st | 35% | CPSC NEISS 20-year severity index |
| Annual ER injury volume | 27,648 | 87th | 30% | CPSC NEISS estimated annual ER-treated injuries |
| 5-year injury trend | -2% | 63rd | 15% | CPSC NEISS 5-year % change in ER-treated injuries |
| Consumer incident reports | 129 | 86th | 20% | CPSC SaferProducts.gov public incident report count |
Methodology: each dimension is ranked against the full population's p10/p25/p50/p75/p90 breakpoints and interpolated to a 0-100 percentile; the composite is the weighted average of available percentiles. See methodology for the full benchmark table.
Where 552,964 estimated ER injuries land on the body
Body-part shares from the same CPSC NEISS injury_types extract for product code 1411. Segments sum to 552,964 - a body-map mix, not a danger score or ER-volume rank.
Two danger lenses
Same-group peer scores and this product's dial
The bars compare PlainSafety danger scores inside the Lawn & Garden Equipment group (same CPSC NEISS extract). The dial is this product's score alone on the Low/Moderate/High bands. Do not read a peer bar as an ER-visit count.
Lawn & Garden Equipment danger scores
How this 41/100 score is built
The score is computed from four CPSC-derived factors for chain saws - no opinion, no editorializing:
- Injury volume 27,648 ER visits/yr High volume
- Severity (hospitalization rate) 5.9% Above median admission rate
- Fatality rate 0.00% No recorded fatalities
- 5-year trend-2%
Band labels compare this category against the corpus of 838 scored CPSC product categories, see the full methodology for the exact weighting of each factor.
What the CPSC Data Shows
Across the 20-year NEISS window from 2005 to 2024, injury counts for chain saws are roughly flat over the last five years, with the busiest year on record being 2024 (32,984 estimated ER visits) and the quietest 2021 (21,162 estimated visits). The single most common ER diagnosis is laceration to the finger, accounting for approximately 93,355 visits across the 20-year NEISS window, followed by laceration to the knee (84,233 cases). The 45-54 age group absorbs the largest share of injuries, about 110,739 cases over the NEISS window, and males appear slightly more often than the opposite sex in that cohort. Severity outcomes from the NEISS disposition field show that 5.9% of ER visits involving this product end in hospital admission or transfer.
Beyond the hospital-sampled NEISS projections, this page also aggregates 129 consumer incident reports filed directly on SaferProducts.gov, plus 20 anonymized ER narratives - together forming a layered picture of how chain saws fail in real households. Every figure on this page comes from CPSC-published data: NEISS projects national estimates from a probability sample of about 100 U.S. hospital emergency departments, while SaferProducts.gov collects voluntary reports from consumers, manufacturers, and clinicians. The danger score, trend indicators, and demographic breakdowns update automatically when CPSC releases a new yearly NEISS file, which is why this page is dated 2024-12-31. For regulatory context, consult CPSC recall notices and the SaferProducts.gov public database linked below.
Annual Injury Estimates (2005–2024)
Source: CPSC NEISS national estimates Injuries represent ER-treated cases only
Who Gets Injured?
| Age Group | Male | Female | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0-4 | 950 | 460 | |
| 5-14 | 7,187 | 970 | |
| 15-24 | 59,361 | 2,189 | |
| 25-34 | 81,886 | 3,809 | |
| 35-44 | 96,150 | 5,393 | |
| 45-54 | 104,419 | 6,320 | |
| 55-64 | 90,184 | 5,246 | |
| 65-74 | 59,594 | 3,838 | |
| 75+ | 24,027 | 954 |
Most Common Injuries
| Body Part | Diagnosis | Est. Injuries |
|---|---|---|
| Finger | Laceration | |
| Knee | Laceration | |
| Lower Leg | Laceration | |
| Upper Leg | Laceration | |
| Hand | Laceration | |
| Lower Arm | Laceration | |
| Foot | Laceration | |
| Eyeball | Contusions, Abr. | |
| Wrist | Laceration | |
| Face | Laceration | |
| Finger | Fracture | |
| Toe | Laceration | |
| Eyeball | Foreign Body | |
| Lower Trunk | Strain, Sprain | |
| Upper Trunk | Other |
Severity Breakdown
ER Visit Narratives
Real anonymized emergency room reports from the CPSC NEISS database.
58YOM WAS STARTING A CHAIN SAW TEN DAYS AGO AND INJURED HIS SHOULDER, TODAY HE WAS HAVING SWELLING AND NUBNESS TO FOREARM DX: RIGHT SHOULDER INJURY POSSIBLE ROTATOR CUFF TEAR
54YOM PRESENTS TO THE EMERGENCY ROOM VIA A PRIVATE VEHICLE WITH A LACERATION TO THE LEFT CHEEK OF THE FACE. THE PATIENT WAS HELPING SPOUSE START A CHANSAW WHEN IT ACCIDENTALLKY JUMPED AND HIT THE PATIENT ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE CHEEK. DX: LEFT CHEEK LACERATION.
71 YOM INJ LT THIGH DIRECT BLOW FROM CHAINSAW AT HOME DX LAC LT THIGH ;
76YOM WITH UPPER EXTREMITY PAIN, HAS BEEN CRANKING A CHAINSAW.DX: MUSCLLE STRAIN RIGHT ROTATOR CUFF.
76 YOF CUT L HAND ON CHAIN SAW DX; HAND LAC
69YOM WAS USING A CHAINSAW TO CUT DOWN BAMBOO AND DEVELOPED COGNITIVE DIFFICULTIES DX: INTRAPARENCHYMAL HEMATOMA OF BRAIN; SUBDURAL HEMATOMA
47 YOF WAS CUTTING BRANCHES WITH A PORTABLE CHAINSAW WHEN IT SLIPPED. DX: OPEN FRACTURE LEFT INDEX FINGER, LACERATION LEFT INDEX FINGER.
26 YOM TRAUMA CHAIN SAW ACCIDENT AT HOME DX TRAUMA
47YOM, ACCIDENTALLY BRUSHED HIS LOWER LEG WITH RUNNING CHAINSAW THAT HE WAS USING, DX: RIGHT LEG LACERATION
47YOM C/O ARM PAIN AFTER USING A CHAIN SAW ALL DAY. DX: FOREARM PAIN
35YOF WAS HIT IN THE LEG WITH A CHAINSAW A FEW DAYS AGO DX: RT SHIN LACERATION
69YOM CUT THUMB WITH A CHAINSAW. DX THUMB LAC
Consumer Incident Reports
Reports filed by consumers on SaferProducts.gov.
Stihl chainsaw 362 has fuel cap which does not reliably seal fuel tank resulting in spilled fuel on operators leg (pants). Although annoying this could result in a fire if near an ignition source. i have had problems with these "flip style" caps in the past - on other Stihl models. This most recent saw had a cap that would not seal after many diliberate attampts to insert and close the mechanism carefully. The leakage resulting from these poorly performing fuel caps could result in an unessacary burn to the saw operator leg. A similar Stihl fuel cap has been the subject of a recall on other types of Sthil power equipment, chainsaws for some reason, were not included. These Sthil "flip type" fuel and oil caps are not reliably capable of preventing a fuel spill onto the operator and also into the environment. A saw fully fueled and left to sit on the ground could conceivably discharge the contents of the tank over - say - a lunch break. Problems with these caps have been ongoing for many years and are well know within the industry - a Google search of Stihl fuel caps returns some discussion of the shortcomings of this overly complex and fragile design. Screw type fuel caps have been successfully used for decades on many types of equipment requiring a fuel tank and a cap used for sealing the tank. The principles and utility of a screw cap are well understood. Common sense could lead one to believe that Sthil's "flip type" caps have not proven themselves - to be able to be used correctly - as Stihl may assert - and or to reliably retain the contents of the fuel and oil tanks. A Gooogle search, today, of "Stihl fuel caps burns"- returned a report by the National Interagency Fire Center, of a wildland firefighter burned from gasoline soaked chaps. The report is - Subject: Stihl Chainsaw Fuel/Oil Caps Date 08/01/2014. The warning issued in this "Safety Warning Final" is a plausible occurrence given my experience with fuel leakage on my pants. So this issue is well k
Product: Poulan PRO Predator 18 in. 42 cc Gas Chain Saw, MFG Model # : 967183701 (Purchased in January, 2013) In about the 2nd year of ownership it was noticed the fuel cap had swelled - or the fuel filler neck distorted - making it difficult to close tightly. In time, fuel was able to leak, which became a fire hazard. Because the defect was noticed, precautions were put into place which prevented a fire, but I must wonder if mine is the only one which leaks fuel. If not, should this tool be recalled? NOTE: No unusual fuels or unauthorized fuel additives had ever been used in this product.
Chain comes off saw consistently since the tightener is poorly designed. Poulan Pro PP4218AVC 42cc. This has occured since purchased several years ago. When the chain loosens (2-3 minutes of use) it travels off the blade. When contacted Poulan stated they had no recalls. I had not even told them the model yet. When I mentioned the model - same answer. When I mentioned I was a safety engineer and concerned that someone will get hurt from the condition and was considering a call to the CPSC - they noted that they were replacing the hand wheel with the conventional two nut system. This recognition of a hazard and correction was not offered up front. That is my concern for that is negligence. They then went on to note they would not replace without a receipt. As a safety professional and long time user of many saw types and brands this is a dangerous condition for the user will tend to continue using the saw well after the loose chain is observed. When the chain does come loose it flies off the bar when moving. That fact that they are not forthcoming with the hazard and correction in not acceptable to me. [REDACTED] CSP
9/24/2012) The caller stated that her husband had just purchased a chainsaw. He took the saw out into the woods the same day of purchase to use it. Approximately 1 hour later, the bar, chain and cover for the assembly all detached from the saw in 3 parts. The consumer did not sustain any injuries due to the incident. The manufacturer was contacted and report was filed and they were informed that forward the information would be forwarded to their corporate office. The consumer took the chainsaw back to the retailer and received a refund.
My parents bought this product -- a mini chainsaw. There is no safety lock -- anyone who accidentally presses on the trigger starts the very powerful chain saw. The trigger is in the only place to really grip the saw. Very dangerous. Here is the link for the product:[REDACTED]
Internal fuel line connections come apart during normal use, spraying gasoline inside the motor case (in potential direct contact with electrical spark and hot muffler, causing an immediate fire hazard) and also spilling on operator's hands and into the environment. This tool uses a primer bulb for starting. Two sections of fuel line are attached to small tubes on the primer bulb, relying only on friction and the rubber fuel line's normal elasticity to hold them in place; no clamps of any kind are used. This is an inherent design flaw: fuel-line connections in a confined environment subjected to high temperatures should be secured better. One of these lines leads from the fuel tank to the primer bulb; the second from the primer bulb to the carburetor. When the primer bulb is pressed (according to manufacturer's instructions for a cold start) it exerts pressure on the second of those fuel lines. That pressure pops the fuel line off the connecting tube, spilling gasoline into the case. I was able to cut off the end of that out-going line, which had apparently become enlarged, and achieve a somewhat more secure fit. But then after using the saw for just a few minutes, the second (incoming) fuel line spontaneously popped off, spraying a dangerous quantity of gasoline into the case and onto my hands. When the motor is turned off, the heat of the engine and muffler causes the spilled fuel inside the engine case to smoke. I have had this saw exactly one year. I bought it in September 2018 immediately after Hurricane Florence and used it for post-storm cleanup for the next few months. It has been in storage since late 2018. Immediately on my attempting to re-start it this month (September 2019) I discovered this problem with the fuel lines. Also, I note from the serial number plate that this saw was manufactured in September 2015, almost three years before it was sold. It may have been in Home Depot's inventory all that time, to be offered for sale on short notice in the a
An employee was starting a Stihl MS-290 chain saw. Once the saw was started the employee revved the engine twice and the saw exploded in the area of the fuel tank catching the saw on fire and the employees left leg (and chaps) on fire. The employee threw the chain saw to the ground and started rolling to put out the fire on his leg. He was assisted by another employee in the area and the fire dept. and medical services were called for assistance. The employee was wearing the proper PPE (gloves, chaps, safety glasses, hearing protection). After the incident was over the chain saw was inspected by the employees co-workers and the safety department. The Stihl web site was researched and found that there was a "Fuel Cap" recall but the chain saw was not listed in the recall. The recall stated that the caps being replaced would have a molded letter "D" or lower on it and the new caps would have a "E" or higher on it. The caps on the saw involved in the incident (and one other saw of the same model) both had the letter "D" on the inside of the cap. The Stihl phone number for the fuel cap recall was called and they were informed of the incident that had occurred with the saw and that a fuel cap with the letter "D" was on the saw at the time of the incident. The Stihl representative stated that there were caps on other pieces of equipment that were similar to the recalled caps and that the cap could be replaced at no charge if the cap was taken to a local distributor. Our concern was that there is a possibility that there are still defective caps on their equipment and that there could possibly be more incidents / injuries because of these caps.
Kobalt 24V brushless chainsaw/with battery. Model KCS 1224A-03. Date code 0420. I see there is a recall on the Model [REDACTED] for the on switch that can stick in the on position even with you hand off the switch. The model chainsaw I purchased is doing the exact same thing. The only way to shut off was to remove the battery. I was up in a tree when this happened and had a terrible time trying to shut it off.
Showing 8 of 129 reports.
Product Recalls
Search for active and past recalls related to chain saws on the CPSC website.
Compare beyond Lawn & Garden Equipment
Nationwide peers by danger score, ER volume & hospitalization
Three PlainSafety-derived comparison paths for Chain Saws: cross-group products nearest on danger score (41/100), estimated annual ER visits (27,648/yr), and hospitalization share (5.9%). Same-group neighbours stay in Related Products above.
Similar danger score
Nearest cross-group products by PlainSafety danger score (100-point scale).
Similar ER visit volume
Nearest cross-group products by NEISS estimated annual ER visits.
Similar hospitalization rate
Nearest cross-group products by % of NEISS ER visits resulting in hospital admission.
Related Products in Lawn & Garden Equipment
Read with this product
About this data
CPSC National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) 2005–2024 and SaferProducts.gov consumer incident reports form the basis of this page. Injury estimates are based on a nationally representative probability sample of U.S. hospital emergency departments.
According to PlainSafety's CPSC NEISS corpus ranking, Chain Saws ranks #137 of 838 scored CPSC product categories by PlainSafety danger score and #96 of 838 by 20-year estimated ER injury volume.
Frequently Asked Questions
Where does chain saws rank on danger score versus ER volume?
Among 838 scored CPSC product categories, chain saws ranks #137 by PlainSafety danger score (41/100) and #96 by 20-year estimated ER injury volume (27,648/yr). The two rankings come from the same NEISS extract and are not the same order.
What are the most common injuries from chain saws?
The most common injury is laceration to the finger, accounting for approximately 93,355 injuries over 20 years.
Are injuries from chain saws increasing or decreasing?
Stable over 5 years.
Who is most at risk for chain saws injuries?
The 45-54 age group accounts for the most injuries, with approximately 110,739 cases recorded over 20 years. Males are more frequently injured in this age group.
What happens when someone is injured by chain saws?
Of all ER visits involving chain saws, approximately 5.9% result in hospital admission. The majority of patients (94.1%) are treated and released from the emergency department.
How can I report a safety problem with chain saws?
You can file a consumer incident report at SaferProducts.gov, the official CPSC reporting portal. Reports help the CPSC identify emerging hazards and trigger investigations or recalls. You can also call the CPSC hotline at 1-800-638-2772.
PlainSafety is rendered directly from U.S. Consumer Product Safety Commission recall and incident records, no number is typed in by an editor. Product recall timelines and hazard labels are drawn from CPSC recall records for this product. See our editorial standards & corrections policy, the methodology behind these numbers, or report a data error. Data current as of August 2026.