House Repair Or Construction Materials,nec
Twenty years of CPSC NEISS emergency-room records for this consumer product category, combined with demographic breakdowns, multi-year injury trends, and matching recall notices.
Building Materials & Home Structures · CPSC Code 1876
Stable over 5 years
The verdict
House Repair Or Construction Materials,nec carry a danger score of 42/100 (moderate risk), driven by roughly 32,060 ER-treated injuries a year that are roughly flat over the last five years.
- 42/100
- danger score (moderate risk)
- 32,060
- ER visits per year (avg)
- 4.8%
- end in hospital admission
- 25-34
- most-injured age group
Every figure is rendered from the CPSC NEISS record for product code 1876 - last data year 2024.
PlainSafety danger score
How this 42/100 score is built
The score is computed from four CPSC-derived factors for house repair or construction materials,nec - no opinion, no editorializing:
- Injury volume32,060 ER visits/yr
- Severity (hospitalization rate)4.8%
- Fatality rate0.05%
- 5-year trend+5%
See the full methodology for the exact weighting of each factor.
What the CPSC Data Shows
House Repair Or Construction Materials,nec (CPSC product code 1876, in the Building Materials & Home Structures category) generate an estimated 32,060 emergency-room visits every year in the United States, adding up to roughly 641,193 ER-treated injuries across the 20-year span from 2005 to 2024. PlainSafety derives a danger score of 42/100 for this category (moderate risk), combining raw injury volume, demographic reach, severity of outcome, and multi-year trend. The five-year trajectory shows that injury counts are roughly flat over the last five years, with the busiest year on record being 2006 (103,853 estimated ER visits) and the quietest 2015 (15,227 estimated visits).
The single most common ER diagnosis for house repair or construction materials,nec is laceration to the finger, accounting for approximately 59,247 visits across the 20-year NEISS window, followed by strain, sprain to the lower trunk (35,622 cases). The 25-34 age group absorbs the largest share of injuries, about 129,031 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 4.8% 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 23 consumer incident reports filed directly on SaferProducts.gov, plus 20 anonymized ER narratives - together forming a layered picture of how house repair or construction materials,nec 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 CPSC NEISS national estimates Injuries represent ER-treated cases only
Who Gets Injured?
| Age Group | Male | Female | Total |
|---|---|---|---|
| 0-4 | 8,659 | 4,901 | |
| 5-14 | 23,242 | 10,387 | |
| 15-24 | 73,823 | 12,763 | |
| 25-34 | 111,228 | 17,803 | |
| 35-44 | 107,424 | 19,378 | |
| 45-54 | 90,069 | 15,940 | |
| 55-64 | 61,828 | 12,356 | |
| 65-74 | 38,184 | 8,795 | |
| 75+ | 18,230 | 6,148 |
Most Common Injuries
| Body Part | Diagnosis | Est. Injuries |
|---|---|---|
| Finger | Laceration | |
| Lower Trunk | Strain, Sprain | |
| Hand | Laceration | |
| Lower Trunk | Other | |
| Head | Internal Injury | |
| Eyeball | Contusions, Abr. | |
| Face | Laceration | |
| Eyeball | Foreign Body | |
| Lower Arm | Laceration | |
| Head | Laceration | |
| Foot | Contusions, Abr. | |
| Shoulder | Strain, Sprain | |
| Upper Trunk | Contusions, Abr. | |
| Upper Trunk | Other | |
| Lower Leg | Laceration |
Severity Breakdown
ER Visit Narratives
Real anonymized emergency room reports from the CPSC NEISS database.
51YOM C/ HEAD PAIN, WAS WORKING UNDERNEATH A HOUSE AND ACCIDENTALLY GOT HIT BY A PIECE OF WOOD THEY WHERE WORKING WITH. DX: FACIAL LACERATION, HEAD CONTUSION
8YOM WORKERS USING CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT IN BASEMENT WHEN CARBON MONOXIDE DETECTOR WENT OFF. COHB 8.2%DX CARBON MONOXIDE EXPOSURE
63YOM PRESENTS WITH LACERATION TO RIGHT RING FINGER THAT OCCURRED WHILE REMODELING A HOUSE TODAY. HE WAS UNABLE TO GET BLEEDING TO STOP WITH DIRECT PRESSURE FOR 2 HOURS. PATIENT NOT ON THINNERS. DX: LACERATION WITHOUT FOREIGN BODY, RIGHT RING FINGER WITHOUT DAMAGE TO THE NAIL.
82YOF PRESENTS TO THE ER AFTER A FALL. SHE STATES SHE WAS AT THE FLOWER SHOP WHEN SHE TRIPPED AND HIT THE RIGHT SIDE OF HER FACE ON SOME PAVERS. NO LOSS OF CONSCIOUSNESS OR OTHER TRAUMA. SHE IS COMPLAINING OF FACIAL PAIN.. DX: FRACTURE ORBITAL FLOOR CLOSED INITIAL RIGHT
67 YOM INJ BACK PUTTING UP DRYWALL AT HOME TWEAKED BACK DX SCIATICA LT LOWER BACK ;
18YOM HAD A FALL 4 WEEKS AGO ONTO SOME HARD MATERIAL STRIKING HIS LEFT ANTERIOR RIBS, TODAY HE WAS LIFTING HEAVY BAGS OF CEMENT AND HEARD OR FELT A POP AND HAD SEVERE PAIN DX: LEFT SEVENTH RIB FRACTURE
73YOF HAS BEEN ENGAGING IN PHYSICAL ACTIVITY BY ASSISTING HER HUSBAND IN BULIDING A HOUSE AND HAS BEEN LIFTING ALOT OF WOOD, HAVING SEVER MUSCLE SPASMS TO HER LOWER BACK DX: LUMBAR SPINE STRAIN
25 YOM FIXING LOOSE METAL ROOF ON HOUSE, WIND BLEW PULLING ROPE C/O SHOULDER PAIN DX STRAIN SHOULDER
43YOM FOR EVAL OF FOREHEAD & LEFT EYEBROW LAC WHICH HE SUSTAINED JUST PTA. HE WAS PUTTING ON METAL ROOFING WHEN A PIECE OF THE METAL ROOFING SLICED ALONG HIS FOREHEAD & ABOVE AND THROUGH HIS LEFT EYEBROW. DX: LACERATION
18 YOM WAS HIT IN FOOT WITH WOODEN BEAM DX: CRUSH AND CONTUSION
24YOF, C/O LACERATION INNER FOREARM FROM FALL WHILE BUILDING PORCH, FELL ON PILE OF TIN ON GROUND DX: FOREARM LACERATION
43YOM C/O LEFT HAND LACERATION. WAS HELPING HIS FRIEND MOVE A METAL ROOF WHEN THE ROOF CUT THROUGH HIS GLOVE AND INTO HIS HAND. SCANS WERE NEGATIVE. DX: LACERATION OF LEFT THUMB WITHOUT FOREIGN BODY WITHOUT DAMAGE TO NAIL
Consumer Incident Reports
Reports filed by consumers on SaferProducts.gov.
I had a home built at 1328 Ellis Mill Rd, Mullica Hill, NJ 08062 on land that I own. The builder was Schaeffer Family Homes located in Berlin, NJ . The building product used in my home for the floor joist was manufactured by Weyerhaeuser and is off gassing high levels of Formeldehyde gas into my home. They sprayed a latex base paint onto the joists without my consent and now they claim that his is a permanent fix. I do not agree and would like some help in having the joists replaced with a safe product. Thank You
Re: Possible Unsafe Products- Stabil Concrete Pavers, LLC-Sarasota, Florida To Whom It May Concern: By way of this communication and Its attachments, I respectfully request the review and possible intervention of the commission. My concerns specifically relate to products which were and continue to be produced by STABIL CONCRETE PAVERS, LLC of Sarasota, Florida. As a point of Information, I am a retired forensic construction defect/product defect consultant with over 35 years of forensic experience. 1 am degreed in the four (4} major engineering disciplines of civil, mechanical, electrical and chemical engineering as well as having been exposed to the commission's interventions in the past. The products of which I have concern are swimming pool coping stones and concrete paving stones. My initial exposure to the defective products were when coping stones were installed on my pool circa March 2014. At that time, the stones exhibited excessive edge chipping. The forensic signatures were quite clear that I may be dealing with a substandard production product. But, hoping that I was dealing with an anomaly, I approached the manufacturer with a warranty claim. Though they attempted to offer what was, in their view, a fair settlement position. In my view, their offer fell short of being equitable. The recalcitrant nature of both the manufacturer as well as their attorney urged me to utilize the forensic skills God chose to entrust to my care. The new question was whether the defective products installed at my pool were just an isolated situation or, in the alternative, evidence of a more pervasive production problem. If the defects were pervasive, they could pose a threat to the health and welfare of the public totally beyond aesthetic appearance issues. Based upon the need to be objective, I temporarily ignored the coping stones installed on my pool. I sought out and obtained standard supply chain samples, maintaining as normal a chain of custody as
Ordered tile sample of zellige tiles from Riad tile. Heard where they are manufactured can use lead glaze on the tile. So I did a lead test and got a glaring positive. Contacted the company and was very dismissed and they did not share my concern.
The consumer and a friend of his were installing this tile in the home and they both became sick after working with it for approximately an hour. They worked with the tile for approximately 6 hours. The tile was installed on all of the counters in the kitchen. The consumer and his friend experienced burning eyes, congestion, upset stomach and dry mouth. The consumer said that he drank about 2 gallons of water, but still could not get rid of the dry mouth symptoms. The box that the tile came in did not indicate what the tile was made out of. The consumer and his friend continued to experience the symptoms the following day. So, leaving the home did not get rid of the symptoms. The consumer noted that an elderly lady who lived in the home also experienced similar symptoms. He believes that some of the dust from the tile got into the home vent system and spread to other parts of the home. This is a 3 story 4,000 square foot home. The consumer has not contacted the mfr. or retailer, but he may do so in the future.
The consumer says that the product created strong fumes to the point that she could not enter her house. Work was being done in the appartment directly behind her in the same building and same complex. They were using an acrylic mixed with a different compound for surfacing a countertops and/or bathtub. She said the fumes entered her apartment and several others and made her sick to the point she had to go to the hospital. The consumer says the Doctors were unable to do anything because she did not have information about the product. She says that it felt like a constant asthma attack. She has also had constant sinus problems, and a runny nose, difficulty breathing, loss of smell, couldn't walk. The consumer says she spoke to the Perfect Surfaces company who uses the product in their resurfacing business, they mix their own version, who told her it would take four hours to to air out but not to worry because the product is non toxic. The consumer says it is highly toxic.
The consumer went out on the deck after the decking was partially installed sat on a bench and she sustained a burn. The consumer estimates that the ambiennt temperature was somewhere between the upper 80's and the low 90's. The consumer sustained her burn in the afternoon. The consumer sat on a part of the bench that had this composite material. The consumer said that the burn occurred immediately. She said that the material began to burn through her clothing and her underwear and she instantly got up. The contractors were at her home and they stopped working on the deck at that point. Later that day, the consumer's husband took readings of the temperature of the material with a non-contact thermometer. The first reading was 156.1 degrees. In other instances, temperatures measured around 150 degrees. Initialy, the consumer's contractor contacted his supplier, but the consumer said that the supplier was dragging their feet. The consumer said that the supplier had a claims person contact her, but she pointed out that may be sued. She was informing them that this material was unsafe and could get excessively hot and could injure someone. The consumer spoke with [REDACTED], Master Mark Plastic, 210 Ampe Dr. Paynesville, MN 56362, Tel: Office 320-243-7318; Cell: [REDACTED]. The consumer said that Mr. [REDACTED] indicated that the distributor knows that material could get hot. The consumer said that Mr.[REDACTED] suggested that she build a shade to cover this material. The consumer does not believe that he addressed her concerns about this product. NOTE: The consumer said that her contractor was willing to redo the deck, If the supplier or the mfr/brand name company was willing to take the material back. The consumer said her contractor has told her that he is not comfortable using this product.
I purchased my current home in August 2009 from the original builder. The home was built in 2006. The roof is covered with Tamko Lamarite Slate Composite shingles. Over the past couple years, sections of shingles have started to crack and fall off the roof into my and my neighbors yard. These sections are typically up to a foot long by 7 to 8 inches wide. This does not appear to be an intallation issues since the cracks typically occur away from the nailed attachment area. When they break, they fall the 20 to 30 feet to the ground at a high rate of speed. Although they are not excessively heavy, their size, speed and configuration make it very dangerous to people below. My neighbor recently returned a section of one shingle that sailed into his yard. Given the number of children, including my own, who play in our yard - I'm very concerned about what would happen if the edge of shingle hit one of them. These shingles are thin and rigid with edges shaped like rough slate. I notified Tamko of the issue. They informed me that their 50 year warranty did not cover me since the builder lived in the house for three years while he was trying to sell it. Evidently the warranty cannot be transferred to a subsequent owner after two years - even if the house is bought directly from the Builder! Tamko has refused to consider any form of resolution. I have contacted a roofer about repairing the 10 to 12 shingles that have broken to date - and have been informed that other shingles are damaged and close to failure as well. I fear this condition will continue to get worse and continue for years unless properly addressed now. Given the cost of these shingles (~ $23,000 for just the shingles) - I had a higher expectation for quality and safety.
Shopping at home Depot, put a piece of metal edging on cart, piled mulch on top so metal edging would not slide off the cart. ( had that problem the last time purchasing this product) The product is sold in 8ft. lengths and the carts to transport the metal are 3ft to 5 ft. long. So the product overhangs on any cart to transport. The product is "RAZOR SHARP" on one side of the edging. No warning signs saying this is sharp. No gloves provided, no SAFETY GUARD on the very sharp edge. I walked away from my cart, went to get more items, upon returning to my cart, I walked into the metal edging and sliced my leg to thew bone. I was taken to the hospital via ambulance, and received 6 stitches in my lower leg. I am scared for life, and have over $3000.00 in medical bills both Home Depot (seller of the product) and Collier Metal Specialties, LTD( manufacturer) REFUSE to take responsibility for selling a dangerous product. It is concerning as a consumer to experience an incident with injury In-which could of been avoided if a PLASTIC GUARD was on the SHARP METAL EDGE. The product cannot be transported from shelf to cash register WITH OUT sustaining an injury. Please investigate the sale of this product.
Showing 8 of 23 reports.
Product Recalls
Search for active and past recalls related to house repair or construction materials,nec on the CPSC website.
Frequently Asked Questions
How dangerous are house repair or construction materials,nec?
Based on 20 years of CPSC data, house repair or construction materials,nec have a danger score of 42/100 (moderate risk). An estimated 32,060 ER-treated injuries occur annually in the U.S. related to this product category.
What are the most common injuries from house repair or construction materials,nec?
The most common injury is laceration to the finger, accounting for approximately 59,247 injuries over 20 years.
Are injuries from house repair or construction materials,nec increasing or decreasing?
Stable over 5 years.
Who is most at risk for house repair or construction materials,nec injuries?
The 25-34 age group accounts for the most injuries, with approximately 129,031 cases recorded over 20 years. Males are more frequently injured in this age group.
What happens when someone is injured by house repair or construction materials,nec?
Of all ER visits involving house repair or construction materials,nec, approximately 4.8% result in hospital admission. The majority of patients (95.2%) are treated and released from the emergency department.
How can I report a safety problem with house repair or construction materials,nec?
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.
Related Products in Building Materials & Home Structures
Safety Guides
What this means for you
Treat the 42/100 score as relative risk between products, not your personal odds of injury.
- See where this category ranks against every other tracked product. Full rankings
- Injuries cluster in the 25-34 age group, take extra care if that describes your household.
- Check for active recalls on this product before you assume it is safe. CPSC recalls
NEISS estimates ER-treated injuries from a national probability sample of hospitals; they do not capture injuries treated elsewhere or not treated at all.
Data: CPSC National Electronic Injury Surveillance System (NEISS) 2005–2024 and SaferProducts.gov consumer incident reports. Injury estimates are based on a nationally representative probability sample of U.S. hospital emergency departments. This page is for informational purposes only and is not affiliated with the CPSC.
Read our methodology - how this data is sourced, scored, and verified.