Morten was the general manager and chief executive officer of the Woolen Company, a knitting mill. Morten delegated all operational decision making to Crouse, the supervising manager of the mill. The child labor laws in the jurisdiction provide, "It is a violation of the law for one to employ a person under the age of 17 years for full-time labor." Without Morten's knowledge, Crouse hired a number of 15- and 16-year-olds to work at the mill full time. He did not ask their ages and they did not disclose them. Crouse could have discovered their ages easily by asking for identification, but he did not do so because he was not aware of the law and believed that company policy was to hire young people. If the statute is interpreted to create strict liability and Crouse is charged with violating it, Crouse is 
guilty, because he should have inquired as to the ages of the children.  guilty, because he hired the children.  not guilty, because in law the Woolen Company, not Crouse, is the employer of the children.  not guilty, because he believed he was following company policy and was not aware of the violation. 
Question: Morten was the general manager and chief executive officer of the Woolen Company, a knitting mill. Morten delegated all operational decision making to Crouse, the supervising manager of the mill. The child labor laws in the jurisdiction provide, "It is a violation of the law for one to employ a person under the age of 17 years for full-time labor." Without Morten's knowledge, Crouse hired a number of 15- and 16-year-olds to work at the mill full time. He did not ask their ages and they did not disclose them. Crouse could have discovered their ages easily by asking for identification, but he did not do so because he was not aware of the law and believed that company policy was to hire young people. If the statute is interpreted to create strict liability and Crouse is charged with violating it, Crouse is 
A. guilty, because he should have inquired as to the ages of the children. 
B. guilty, because he hired the children. 
C. not guilty, because in law the Woolen Company, not Crouse, is the employer of the children. 
D. not guilty, because he believed he was following company policy and was not aware of the violation. 
Answer: