In Bennett v. Hardy, 113 Wn.2d 912, 919, 784 P.2d 1258 (1990), the Court outlined when a cause of action will be implied from a statute. The following questions must be asked: First, whether the plaintiff is within the class for whose "especial" benefit the statute was enacted; second, whether legislative intent, explicitly or implicitly supports creating or denying a remedy; and third, whether implying a remedy is consistent with the underlying purpose of the legislation. Bennett, 113 Wn.2d at 920-21. The Bennett test was borrowed from the federal courts and is similar to 874A of the Restatement (Second) of Torts, which reads: When a legislative provision protects a class of persons by proscribing or requiring certain conduct but does not provide a civil remedy for the violation, the court may, if it determines that the remedy is appropriate in furtherance of the purpose of the legislation and needed to assure the effectiveness of the provision, accord to an injured member of the class a right of action, using a suitable existing tort action or a new cause of action analogous to an existing tort action. RESTATEMENT (SECOND) OF TORTS 874A (1979).