ShareThis Page
Driver might face charges in crash that killed baby girl |

Driver might face charges in crash that killed baby girl

| Saturday, August 27, 2005 12:00 a.m

State police at Uniontown are awaiting autopsy results on a near-term infant to determine whether a motorist will be charged with causing her death after colliding with the car her mother was driving.

Fayette County residents Michael B. Diehl, 25, of Point Marion, and Carol J. Rafail, 33, of Smithfield, who was 8 1/2 months pregnant, were traveling in opposite directions on Route 119 near Gans Road in Springhill Township when the accident occurred at 7:34 a.m. Wednesday, according to Trooper Matthew J. Alekson.

“He was passing a vehicle in a no-passing zone and struck her head-on,” Alekson said.

Diehl, who was driving a 1997 Chevrolet Cavalier, was not wearing a seat belt and suffered moderate injuries. Rafail, who was driving a 2002 Pontiac Sunfire and was wearing a seat belt, also suffered moderate injuries. Her baby girl was pronounced dead at 4:33 p.m. at Ruby Memorial Hospital in Morgantown, W.Va.

Services for Haley Marie Rafail, the daughter of Carol and Waddia Rafail, were held yesterday at John S. Maykuth Funeral Home in Masontown.

Test results and further investigation are necessary before any decision is made concerning charges against Diehl, Alekson said.

“We will look for any existing medical condition that may have caused the baby’s death or if her death was a result of the accident,” he said.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.