With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Sawyer factors do not support an implied tort under section 2 — 123(h) of the Vehicle Code. To the contrary, Sawyer and its progeny lead to the opposite conclusion. We observe initially that the Sawyer factors are customarily stated as four, not five, factors. Claimants add a generic “public policy of tire statute” factor, which does not reflect the post-Sawyer formulations and seemingly adds nothing of substance to the four Sawyer factors. As our Supreme Court summarized the Sawyer factors in Corgan v. Muehling (1991), 143 Ill. 2d 296, 574 N.E.2d 602, 609, 158 Ill. Dec. 489, 496 (finding private action implied by the Psychologist Registration Act), which it more recently excerpted in Rogers v. St. Mary’s Hospital of Decatur (1992), 149 Ill. 2d 302, 597 N.E.2d 616, 173 Ill. Dec. 642 (<HOLDING>): “Implication of a private right of action is

A: recognizing implied private action under the xray retention act
B: recognizing implied private action under the plat act rejecting implied private action under the national flood insurance act of 1968
C: recognizing implied private action under the collection agency act
D: recognizing implied private action under federal safety appliance act
A.