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
holding that petition failed to allege fire hydrants were physically defective where fire hydrants did not work and plaintiffs decedent was killed in fire 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 holding that the relationship between fire insurance regulation and rating fire loss fire prevention and fire investigation is rational and reasonable holding person is at grave risk of death when directly in the line of fire or when in a zone of danger holding that the state failed to prove the corpus delicti of arson in that there was no evidence to corroborate the appellants confession establishing that the fire was caused by a criminal act