A seven-year-old boy followed his dog into Mr. Howe's backyard. He fell into a large hole dug by Mr. Howe in preparation for a tree that had been ordered. The boy broke his arm in the fall. At the hospital the boy was treated by a doctor employed there for four years. The doctor did not set the boy's arm because he made a mistake in reading the xray. Because the arm was not treated correctly, it healed improperly. When the boy kept complaining, his mother took him to their family doctor who discovered the error. The boy had to have his arm rebroken so that it could be set properly. On these facts, which of the following is true?
a. The owner of the land owed no duty of care to the boy or anyone else on his property without his permission.
b. The case law that developed over hundreds of years on the duty of care owed by occupiers of land has priority over any subsequent legislation on the point.
c. The doctor owed a duty of care to the boy but he only had to meet the standard of care expected of the average man.
d. The hospital, not the doctor, would be solely liable for any harm suffered due to the negligence of a doctor on the job.
e. In an action against the land owner, if the boy were found to be partially at fault for his injury, the court would apportion the award of damages as it apportioned the fault.