Angleton, Texas ? A jury Friday awarded more than $250 million in damages to the widow of a man who died after taking Vioxx, handing Merck & Co., maker of the painkiller, a big loss in the first trial of what is expected to be a years-long legal battle.

The verdict came after the six-week trial of the first of more than 4,000 lawsuits against Vioxx-maker Merck & Co. Analysts had said the outcome could cause more lawsuits to be filed, raising Merck’s potential liability nationwide as high as $20 billion.

Following the verdict, Merck shares fell $2.35, or 7.7 percent, to close at $28.06 Friday on the New York Stock Exchange.

The verdict was met with cheers by family and friends of Carol Ernst, who blamed Vioxx and Merck for the sudden death in 2001 of her seemingly healthy husband, Robert.

“It means the justice system in America works and it works very well,” said Carol Ernst’s lawyer, Mark Lanier.

Lanier acknowledged the amount awarded exceeded limits in Texas and probably would be reduced later on appeal.

Carol Ernst and her attorney Mark Lanier hug after winning her case against Vioxx maker Merck & Co. A Texas jury found the pharmaceutical giant liable Friday for the death of Ernst's husband who took the painkiller Vioxx, awarding her 53.4 million in damages.

“But it sends a message,” he said.

Merck’s lawyers expressed disappointment with the verdict and said they were studying an appeal.

“We believe the plaintiff did not meet the standard set by Texas law to prove Vioxx caused Ernst’s death,” attorney Jonathan Skidmore said.

Carol Ernst, of Keene, Texas, blamed Merck for the death of her husband after he took Vioxx for hip and hand pain for eight months. Studies have shown that Vioxx increases the risk of heart attack and stroke.

Merck had contended that the death of Robert Ernst, a marathoner who died in May 2001 at age 59, could not have been caused by Vioxx because a coroner attributed it to an irregular heartbeat, not a heart attack.

Merck denied wrongdoing, saying it followed good scientific practices and acted responsibly in bringing Vioxx to market and keeping it there until last September, when the company says the risks became clear.

Carol Ernst accused Merck of pushing Vioxx past the U.S. Food & Drug Administration in 1999 in a race for market share with Pfizer’s Celebrex. She charged Merck knew of the heart attack risk but failed to fully disclose it.

Merck answered that the heart-attack risk was not clear until last fall, and that it followed good scientific practices and acted responsibly. Merck pulled the drug from the market last September.

“Merck should come to the table and accept responsibility,” Lanier said.

The jury broke down the damage award as $450,000 in economic damages – Robert Ernst’s lost pay as a Wal-Mart produce manager; $24 million for mental anguish and loss of companionship, and $229 million in punitive damages.

But the punitive damage amount is likely to be reduced as state law caps it at twice the amount of economic damages – lost pay – and up to $750,000 on top of non-economic damages, which are comprised of mental anguish and loss of companionship.

Under that formula, $1.65 million is the maximum amount of punitive damages that Carol Ernst could receive, versus the $229 million that is being sought.

“This case did not call for punitive damages,” Skidmore added. “Merck acted responsibly – from researching Vioxx prior to approval in clinical trials involving almost 10,000 patients – to monitoring the medicine while it was on the market – to voluntarily withdrawing the medicine when it did.”

– The Associated Press contributed information to this story.