Law of Remedies § 3.2, at 139 ("Courts are quite willing to award general damages but quite reluctant to award special damages."); Utah R. Civ. P. 9 (The same pleading rule requiring, in subsection (b), that fraud be pleaded "with particularity" also requires, in subsection (g), that "[wlhen items of special damage are claimed, they shall be specifically stated."). 126 Uncharacteristically, Utah appellate courts have ignored the plain language of the statute and done what the Legislature probably really intended. Thus, we pay lip service to the fact that the statute equates pecuniary damages with special damages and excludes any recovery for general damages but then go on to affirm awards of what are clearly general damages. See eg., State v. McBride, 940 P.2d 539, 545 (Utah Ct.App.) (<HOLDING>), cert. denied, 958 P.2d 449 (Utah 1997); State
holding the trial court violated the separation of powers doctrine when it ordered the office of the state attorney to pay for the costs of mental health experts evaluating the defendant holding that under the restitution provision of the supervised release statute 18 usc  3583 restitution can be ordered only for losses caused by the specific conduct that is the basis for the offense of conviction holding the trial court correctly ordered appellant to pay restitution for the full value of the vehicle holding trial court was without authority to order appellant to pay restitution for losses caused by offense for which appellant was not criminally responsible and deleting restitution as condition of probation holding that criminal defendant was not entitled to a jury trial on the issue of restitution under the oregon vehicle code