In Hockler v. William Powell Co., 129 AD3d 463 (1st Dept 2015) Mr. Hockler had worked as a salvager for several years during the early 1980's. He alleged that he developed mesothelioma as a result of his occupational exposure to asbestos while salvaging scrap metal from equipment located in vacant buildings including asbestos-containing pumps and valves. According to his testimony some of those valves were manufactured by William Powell Company ("Powell"). Powell sought summary dismissal of Hackler's action on the ground that it owed no duty to warn Mr. Hockler of the hazards associated with asbestos since he was not a foreseeable user of its products and his activities were not a foreseeable use of its products. By order dated October 20, 2014 I denied Powell's motion, and Powell appealed therefrom to the First Department. Noting that this particular situation "has not been squarely addressed by the courts of this State" the First Department relied on Restatement (Second) of Torts 402A in formulating the issue presented to it in Hockler on appeal as "whether salvaging and dismantling constitute foreseeable uses of a product." Hockler at 464. In reversing my October 20, 2014 order the First Department found that Mr. Hockler's junk salvage work was not a reasonably foreseeable use of the valves manufactured by Powell and concluded that as "plaintiff did not use Powell's manufactured product in a reasonably foreseeable manner and his salvage work was not an intended use of the product, the complaint should have been dismissed." Id.