[Arthalion]

However, I don't think Wal Mart should be responsible for designing and installing mirrors that will withstand being played with by children.

In some cases I would agree, but when said mirror is installed in the childrens department of the store, Walmart has to reasonably expect that children will be present there and plan their displays around that fact. If the kid were climbing on a display mirror in the furniture department, I could see a reasonable argument being made that the child and parent created the unsafe situation. But in this case, we're talking about a heavy mirror (likely with some type of wooden backing, if it was that heavy) which was placed there specifically for children to use (assumption: large mirrors in childrens departments are usually for viewing tried-on clothing). An object placed for a childs use should be able to take normal child-type stresses (including tugging, pulling, and even moderate climbing) without collapsing and killing someone.

Most likely, the collapse was the fault of shoddy workmanship. That makes it Walmarts liability.

[doc30]

We'll never know until an engineer looks at the failure and we get some information from witnesses as to what was actually going on. Basically, a court would need to look at it. But Wal Mart will more than likely hand some $$ to the parentws to make the case go away.