ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. — A jury ­delivered a stunning verdict in Hulk Hogan’s lawsuit against Gawker Friday evening — awarding the wrestling legend $115 million for the sex tape the Web site posted in 2012.

Hogan, who stands to win even more money when punitive damages are decided next week, sobbed after the six jurors ­returned their verdict.

It took them close to six hours to decide that Gawker violated Hogan’s privacy and caused him severe emotional distress by publishing a now-infamous ­1-minute, 41-second clip of him having sex with the wife of his former best buddy, Bubba The Love Sponge Clem.

In siding with Hogan, whose real name is Terry Bollea, the jury ­decided that he was performing a private act in the sex tape — and posting the video wasn’t protected by the First Amendment.

The jury didn’t stop with the media company.

It also found Gawker founder Nick Denton and the ex-editor who posted the video, A.J. Daulerio, personally liable.

Jurors awarded Hogan $55 million in economic damages and another $60 million for emotional distress.

Under Florida state law, Gawker must post a $50 million bond about one month after jurors decide on punitive damages — which could have disastrous consequences for the company.

Hogan, who originally sued for $100 million, didn’t comment as he walked out of court, but was emotional after the verdict was read, hugging his lawyers and slapping their backs.

“Thank you God for justice, only love 4Life,” he later tweeted.

In another tweet, he added, “Told ya I was gonna slam another giant.”

Hogan’s lawyers said they were “exceptionally happy.”

“We think it represents a statement as to the public’s disgust with the invasion of privacy disguised as journalism,” the lawyers said in a statement. “The verdict says no more.”

Denton immediately vowed to appeal.

“Given key evidence and the most important witness were both improperly withheld from this jury, we all knew the appeals court will need to resolve the case,” he told reporters, as Dau­lerio stood behind him with tears in his eyes.

“I want to thank our lawyers for their outstanding work and am confident that we would have prevailed at trial if we had been allowed to present the full case to the jury. That’s why we feel very positive about the appeal that we have already begun preparing, as we expect to win this case.”

Hogan’s lawsuit claimed Gawker ­violated his right to privacy by posting the sex tape, which the wrestler said was filmed without his knowledge.

Gawker has maintained that because he’s a public figure, Hogan’s sex life was a matter of public interest and posting the tape was protected by the Constitution.

Throughout the 10-day trial, jurors heard from more than a dozen witnesses, including Denton and Daulerio.

Hogan also took the stand, saying he was “completely humiliated” when he learned Gawker had posted the video.

The testimony was sometimes cringe-worthy, with ­Hogan at one point having to admit, “No, seriously, I do not have a 10-inch penis,” when asked about a 2006 radio interview with Clem.

His sex-tape co-star, Heather Cole, testifying in a taped ­deposition played for jurors, ­recounted how her ex-husband demanded that she hook up with his pal multiple times.

As the jury deliberated, ­Hogan tweeted “Praying” to his 1.42 million followers.

During closing arguments, Hogan’s lawyers had insisted Gawker behaved “recklessly” when it published a portion of the sex tape without bothering to ask the wrestling superstar for comment.

“What’s significant in the world of Gawker is a tape of my client in a private bedroom with a friend at the lowest point in his life,” said Hogan’s lawyer, Kenneth Turkel.

Referring to internal staffer messages, Turkel said Daulerio and his colleagues spent at least a couple of days callously joking about the sex tape.

“Mr. Daulerio sits down at the computer with his friends, joking, laughing, mocking, recklessly consuming this content, and with a click uploads this thing up on the Internet and turns this man’s life upside down,” he said.

Turkel argued that Gawker saw an impressive spike in unique page views after posting the video — and its monetary value, not newsworthiness, was the site’s ultimate concern.

“This case defines reckless disregard,” he said.

“Every witness was asked, ‘If you knew it would cause him severe emotional distress, would you have done it anyway?’ And every witness said, ‘Yes.’ ”

Gawker lawyer Michael Sullivan had argued the posting was “lawful and legal.”

He urged jurors to protect the First Amendment. “[Hogan] has a very different baseline for privacy,” he said.

Additional reporting by ­Danika Fears.