Danger score versus ER volume
Danger score versus ER volume
According to CPSC NEISS 2005-2024, Fences Or Fence Posts ranks #63 of 838 by danger score (44/100) at ER-volume #27 of 838 (110,339/yr). They are not the same ranking.
- #63
- danger rank of 838
- #27
- ER-volume rank of 838
- 44/100
- danger score
- 110,339/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 (44/100) across 838 scored CPSC product categories
44 Higher than most more dangerous than 90% 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: 69/100
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) | 7 | 59th | 35% | CPSC NEISS 20-year severity index |
| Annual ER injury volume | 110,339 | 100th | 30% | CPSC NEISS estimated annual ER-treated injuries |
| 5-year injury trend | -9% | 52nd | 15% | CPSC NEISS 5-year % change in ER-treated injuries |
| Consumer incident reports | 14 | 52nd | 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 2.2M estimated ER injuries land on the body
Body-part shares from the same CPSC NEISS injury_types extract for product code 1871. Segments sum to 2.2M - 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 Building Materials & Home Structures 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.
Building Materials & Home Structures danger scores
How this 44/100 score is built
The score is computed from four CPSC-derived factors for fences or fence posts - no opinion, no editorializing:
- Injury volume 110,339 ER visits/yr Very high volume
- Severity (hospitalization rate) 6.7% Above median admission rate
- Fatality rate 0.05% Above-typical fatality rate
- 5-year trend-9%
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 fences or fence posts are roughly flat over the last five years, with the busiest year on record being 2012 (124,111 estimated ER visits) and the quietest 2020 (93,530 estimated visits). The single most common ER diagnosis is laceration to the face, accounting for approximately 139,034 visits across the 20-year NEISS window, followed by laceration to the hand (136,027 cases). The 5-14 age group absorbs the largest share of injuries, about 508,310 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 6.7% of ER visits involving this product end in hospital admission or transfer, and a small fraction (0.05%) result in fatality.
Beyond the hospital-sampled NEISS projections, this page also aggregates 14 consumer incident reports filed directly on SaferProducts.gov, plus 20 anonymized ER narratives - together forming a layered picture of how fences or fence posts 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 | 64,038 | 32,377 | |
| 5-14 | 356,756 | 151,539 | |
| 15-24 | 327,892 | 130,018 | |
| 25-34 | 230,960 | 84,630 | |
| 35-44 | 166,315 | 78,402 | |
| 45-54 | 133,594 | 76,024 | |
| 55-64 | 98,162 | 62,271 | |
| 65-74 | 66,663 | 50,164 | |
| 75+ | 51,608 | 44,897 |
Most Common Injuries
| Body Part | Diagnosis | Est. Injuries |
|---|---|---|
| Face | Laceration | |
| Hand | Laceration | |
| Head | Internal Injury | |
| Finger | Laceration | |
| Lower Arm | Laceration | |
| Lower Leg | Laceration | |
| Ankle | Strain, Sprain | |
| Head | Laceration | |
| Upper Trunk | Contusions, Abr. | |
| Lower Arm | Fracture | |
| Face | Contusions, Abr. | |
| Hand | Contusions, Abr. | |
| Ankle | Fracture | |
| Wrist | Fracture | |
| Knee | Strain, Sprain |
Severity Breakdown
ER Visit Narratives
Real anonymized emergency room reports from the CPSC NEISS database.
37 YOF COMES BY POLICE AFTER MVA, RESTRAINED DRIVER IN VEHICLE THAT HIT A CHAIN LINK FENCE, OCCURRED SEVERAL HOURS PRIOR TO ARRIVAL. DX: MUSCULSKELETAL PAIN, MVC
8YOM WITH LAC. TO LEFT LOWER LEG. PATIENT WAS PLAYING OUTSIDE WITH HIS DOG, DOG CRAWLED UNDER A CHAIN LINK FENCE, PATIENT TRIED TO CRAWL UNDER THE FENCE, CUT HIS LOWER LEG.DX: SINGLE SUPERFICIAL LAC. LEFT LOWER LEG.
49 YOF FELL HIT HEAD ON A POST AT HOME DX CONTUSION HEAD
11 YOM CLIMBED OVER A METAL FENCE AND CUT LEG. DX LACERATION
79YOF GOT KNOCKED OVER BY A HORSE EARLIER TODAY, FELL AND HIT THE BACK OF HER HEAD ON A GATE DX: T12 COMPRESSION FRACTURE
18YOM PATIENT WAS A UNRESTRAINED DRIVER, AND WAS EJECTED INTO BARBWIRE FENCE, TESTED POSITIVE FOR MARIJANA, METHAMPHETAMINE DX: CONTUSION OF BOTH LUNGS, LACERATION OF SCALP, LACERATION OF RIGHT KIDNEY, LACERATION OF SPLEEN, CLOSED FRACTURE DISLOCATION OF CERVICAL SPINE, CLOSED STABLE BURST FRACTURE OF SECOND THORACIC VERTEBRA
49YOM PATIENT WAS AT HOME, WAS PICKING UP A POST AND FELT SOMETHING PULL IN LOWER BACK DX: ACUTE BILATERAL LOW BACK PAIN WITHOUT SCIATICA
66 YOF. HIP PAIN AFTER PT LOST HER BALANCE , FELL TO THE SIDE AGAINST A GATE. DX: CLOSED HIP FX
83YOF WITH SPRAINED HIP STEPPING ON A GATE DX: SPRAINED HIP
7YOM WAS WALKING INSIDE A PRIVATE PROPERTY WHEN THE GATE CLOSED ONTO THE BACK OF HIS RIGHT FOOT DX: LACERATION FOOT
69YOF TRIPPED OVER A BARRIER IN THE PARKING LOT OF STORE AND FELL ONTO RIGHT ARM, DX: CLOSED NONDISPLACED FRACTURE OF HEAD OF RIGHT RADIUS
25YOM, JUMPED OVER A FENCE BEING CHASED BY POLICE AND FELL HITTING CHEST ONTO CONCRETE, DX: CHEST WALL PAIN
Consumer Incident Reports
Reports filed by consumers on SaferProducts.gov.
Kent County MI installed four Electrically-powered Gates at our Training Recycling Center, Manufacturer's Safety Installation Instructions not followed. Electric Gates required UL325 and ASTM F2200-02 Compliance, missing Obstruction sensors (Photo-eyes or Contact Edges), in need of full safety inspection by local AHJ's Chief Electrical Inspector or reinspected by retail installer and certified OSCO Linear Technical person.
Gate malfunctioned. Gate was supposed to be self closing and self locking. Gate stayed open after older child exited pool. Younger child was able to enter pool and drowned as a result.
On July 16, 2025, I purchased a roll of Garden Craft Fence (36 in. wide x 10 ft. long x 1/2 inch mesh opening) from Lowes. While opening the product at home, I cut the wire that was wrapped around the fencing to secure it, which caused the tightly wound spool of fencing to suddenly unravel and explode, resulting in cuts to my left middle finger and left forearm. I have attached photos documenting my injuries for your records. This incident could have been avoided if there had been a prominent warning label on the fencing product indicating the risk of sudden unraveling when the securing wire is cut. Therefore, I strongly urge Lowes to have your buyers contact the Garden Craft Fencing company and request that they update their labeling to include the following warning: Warning: Tightly wound spool of fencing will quickly unravel once the metal string wrapped around the fencing is cut. This is a serious consumer safety concern, and I am submitting this request as a concerned customer who was directly injured due to the absence of such a warning. Thank you for your immediate attention to this matter. Please confirm receipt of this email.
Certification/Standards information = UL325, ASTM f2200 Defect/Problem = Installer failed to install in accordance with Manufacturer's Safety Instructions (NEC 110.3(B) Installation and Use.). It was a non-compliant installation, and was missing safety equipment. This gate operator is at our city Public Yard Waste and Installer should have installed Safety Contact Edges on both sides of Electric Operator, this Model is the same as the one that Killed the 11year old girl in Toledo last year by pulling her in between the gate and the electric operator a 5.25 inch space, if the two required contact safety edges had been in place the gate is designed to STOP AND REVERSE 2 to 6 INCHES. How and When Discovered = While visiting our local city's Public Yard Waste to dump our yard waste, I have installed these units for over 30 years and the city pays no attention to my complaints of at least 9 safety violation (NEC, OSHA, MIOSHA, UL325, ASTMf2200, Manufacturer's Safety Installation Instructions, to name a few. Type of Hazard = other Other Hazard = NEC, Manufacturer's Safety Installation Instructions violations
Respondent is reporting incident caused by electric Fencer at consumer home. The product ignited fire from a dry grass on the ground which started fire in a neutral zone. The consumer was able to contain the fire with a garden hose. The Fencer had a plastic coating which melted and over a time of exposure caused the incident. He stated that he researched online and noticed that they were other complaints of this product. The consumer has the product. Respondent feels that this is a fire hazard which should be reported.
Death and injury from fences that don't comform to the SPSC continue to casuse injury and death. i.e. [REDACTED]. Fencing is being moved out of Europe and Canada that meet other counties codes but do not meet BOCA under the SPSC.GOV. BOCA considers a fence to be safe if a temporary fence panel has a wire with vertical gap of under 1.75". European panels have over a 2" gap are look like a ladder to children. According to BOCA, if the vertical members of a fence are 1.75" or less a child cannot get their foot on the horizontal member, therefore prohibiting them from being able to climb the fence. See [REDACTED]
(03/05/2017) The consumer stated that he was taking the fence out of his truck. A sharp end of the fence was sticking out of the roll. The sharp end cut his index finger. The consumer stated that he did not have on gloves. Also, there are no warning on the product. The consumer did not seek medical attention
AquaSafe Unlimited Inc. (Installing Company and Retailer) [REDACTED] (Owner) - [REDACTED] Aqua-Safe Unlimited Inc. US Patent No.: 5,664,769 02/15/2015 The consumer's 18-month-old nephew put his hand in the gate and all of a sudden, his hand went completely through the gate and created a hole in it. The baby did not cry because the consumer was in his proximity and was able to free her nephew from the gate. The consumer immediately locked the back door to the pool and no one has been able to go there because the gate is no longer functional and she is concerned for the smaller kid's safety that visit her home on a regular basis. The consumer indicates that having a pool in the state of Nevada is a necessity and not a luxury due to the almost year-round hot weather. The consumer indicates that she started noticing the pool gate tattering on several places since the Summer of 2014 but did not look into it much because of the lifetime warranty the unit comes with and because it was still holding up. 02/18/2015 - The consumer's husband contacted AquaSafe Unlimited Inc. and explained to [REDACTED] what had happened with her pool gate. When [REDACTED] was informed that they own the tan/ brown colored pool gate, he informed the consumers that it was a known fact that this pool gate was not treated with UV protection, and thus this was the reason why the gate deteriorates over the year. [REDACTED] indicated that he would visit the consumer's home the next day to explain what the process would be. 02/19/2015 - [REDACTED] went to the consumer's home in the morning. He inspected the unit. He verified that it was the tan/ brown colored pool gate. He informed the consumer's once again that these pool gates did have that problem with the UV protection not having been in the fabric. He also informed the consumers that he had inspected numerous pool gates and he himself had to replace thirty of these same pool gates purchased around the same time and that they a
Showing 8 of 14 reports.
Product Recalls
Search for active and past recalls related to fences or fence posts on the CPSC website.
Compare beyond Building Materials & Home Structures
Nationwide peers by danger score, ER volume & hospitalization
Three PlainSafety-derived comparison paths for Fences Or Fence Posts: cross-group products nearest on danger score (44/100), estimated annual ER visits (110,339/yr), and hospitalization share (6.7%). 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 Building Materials & Home Structures
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, Fences Or Fence Posts ranks #63 of 838 scored CPSC product categories by PlainSafety danger score and #27 of 838 by 20-year estimated ER injury volume.
Frequently Asked Questions
Where does fences or fence posts rank on danger score versus ER volume?
Among 838 scored CPSC product categories, fences or fence posts ranks #63 by PlainSafety danger score (44/100) and #27 by 20-year estimated ER injury volume (110,339/yr). The two rankings come from the same NEISS extract and are not the same order.
What are the most common injuries from fences or fence posts?
The most common injury is laceration to the face, accounting for approximately 139,034 injuries over 20 years.
Are injuries from fences or fence posts increasing or decreasing?
Stable over 5 years.
Who is most at risk for fences or fence posts injuries?
The 5-14 age group accounts for the most injuries, with approximately 508,310 cases recorded over 20 years. Males are more frequently injured in this age group.
What happens when someone is injured by fences or fence posts?
Of all ER visits involving fences or fence posts, approximately 6.7% result in hospital admission. The majority of patients (93.3%) are treated and released from the emergency department.
How can I report a safety problem with fences or fence posts?
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.