MARTHA STEPHENS VAN SCOYOC AND WILLIAM L. VAN SCOYOC, APPELLANTS,

v.

VERDYE UMSTAD YORK AND CHARLOTTE PAGET, APPELLEES

SMITH, Chief Judge.

The plaintiffs-appellants obtained a judgment for damages against the defendants-appellees from which the plaintiffs appeal, assigning numerous errors, all pertaining to the inadequacy of the damages. In due time the plaintiffs filed their designation to the reporter for transcription of proceedings and thereafter the deputy official court reporter who attended the trial certified that he had inadvertently destroyed a substantial portion of his notes and therefore he could not transcribe that portion. The plaintiffs then filed their motion for an order by the trial court to complete the record-on-appeal. At the hearing the court determined that the parties could not agree upon a stipulated statement in accordance with Florida Appellate Rule 3.6 (h), 31 F.S.A., that the loss of a portion of the reporter’s notes was not caused by any lack of diligence on the part of anjr of the parties, that it is material to the grounds assigned as error, that counsel for plaintiffs have made every reasonable effort to assist the court in re-establishing the missing testimony by submitting a summarized statement in narrative form representing plaintiffs’ recollection of the trial proceedings but that the testimony included' in the missing notes was of long duration, complex and technical and that it was impossible for the court to reconstruct the testimony or to provide narrative form statements or anything else to complete the record-on-appeal.

This cause is now before this court on the motion of the plaintiffs for an order *485either remanding this cause to the trial court with directions that the trial court enter an order granting a new trial on the issue of damages only or relinquishing jurisdiction to the trial court for the purpose of that court hearing plaintiffs’ extraordinary motion for new trial because of the court’s inability to perfect the record-on-appeal.

It appears that the plaintiffs have already complied with the terms of a directive which we gave in Thomas v. State, Fla.App.1964, 160 So.2d 119, in a similar situation where the reporter was unable to transcribe her notes. After complying with that procedure the plaintiffs here are unable to present to this court a record-on-appeal solely because an official reporter destroyed his notes. We must therefore determine what relief the plaintiffs should receive.

So far as our research discloses,1 there are no Florida decisions determining what relief, if any, is available to an appellant in a civil case who is unable to perfect an appeal because of the loss or destruction by an official court reporter2 of essential stenographic notes or similar misfortune.3 The decisions from other jurisdictions on this and related questions cannot readily be reconciled.4

The appellate courts in some states have denied relief on the ground that their jurisdiction was limited to -reviewing decisions of lower courts.5 Others have held that relief was obtainable but that it must be sought through appropriate proceedings in a lower court.6 At least one appellate court has directly faced and overcome the jurisdictional problem by expressly holding that it had the power to order a new trial *486in order to protect its jurisdiction, which attached when the appeal was filed, and to protect the appellant’s right of appeal.7 The appellate courts of several other states have granted new trials apparently without expressly determining the question of jurisdiction.8 Finally, in some jurisdictions the problem has been solved by statute.9

This court has acquired jurisdiction of the action and it has the right, power and duty to review it for error. As an incident to its power to require that it be furnished a complete and accurate record-on-appeal, we think this court necessarily has the power to award a new trial where, as here, essential records have been destroyed by an official of the lower court through no fault of the appellant.10 Further, we think such power should be exercised where, as here, the misfortune was not discovered until after our jurisdiction attacked and the record before us unequivocally establishes the appellant’s right to relief. Consequently, we need not and do not determine what, if any, alternate procedures may exist for obtaining relief in these or similar circumstances.

The appellants’ motion sets forth no facts or circumstances which authorize or require us to limit a new trial to the issue of damages. The facts that the plaintiffs’ appeal is concerned solely ‘with the adequacy of the damages and that no cross-assignments of error have been filed do not of themselves warrant such an order. Accordingly, a new trial is awarded on all issues.

Reversed.

ALLEN and ANDREWS, JJ., concur.