With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". Id. at 128-29. ¶22 The Golladay court concluded that there was not a sufficient causal connection between the murder and the larceny, pointing to the fact that the larceny occurred after the killing. Id. at 130. The court explained: “As to when a homicide may be said to have been committed in the course of the perpetration of another crime, the rule is ... : “ ‘It may be stated generally that a homicide is committed in the perpetration of another crime, when the accused, intending to commit some crime other than the to have been committed in the course of a felony, the causal connection had to run such that the death was the probable consequence of the felony, but not the other way around. See Golladay, 78 Wn.2d at 131; cf. State v. Leech, 114 Wn.2d 700, 705, 709, 790 P.2d 160 (1990) (<HOLDING>). ¶23 The trial court here attempted to

A: holding that petition failed to allege fire hydrants were physically defective where fire hydrants did not work and plaintiffs decedent was killed in fire
B: holding that the relationship between fire insurance regulation and rating fire loss fire prevention and fire investigation is rational and reasonable
C: holding person is at grave risk of death when directly in the line of fire or when in a zone of danger
D: holding where the defendants conduct in setting a fire was a proximate cause of a fire fighters death the death occurred in course of and in furtherance of the arson
D.