Tim1962:
Did you make an insurance claim? Was the accident someone else’s fault, if so you will have a claim against the other driver for loss of livelyhood
There may not be a claim against any negligent driver(s) in this case, though it is worth seeking legal advice on the possibility of a claim.
If the loss of livelihood was a direct consequence of the accident, then it is likely that a claim would succeed. However, in this case, the original poster appears to be fit to return to work and, indeed, had returned to work. The loss of LGV entitlement was due to DVLA’s fears about the risk of epileptic seizure. Because there is no direct link between the injuries sustained in the accident and the inability to drive an LGV, the loss of livelihood is an indirect rather than direct consequence of the accident.
I haven’t the time to check if the courts have already examined the issue of loss of LGV entitlement following personal injury when the loss of LGV entitlement is based on DVLA’s risk assessment rather than being a direct result of the injuries sustained. If they have, the courts will likely adopt the same approach in this case.
My fear that a negligence claim may not be possible here is based on two key cases in the law of negligence in England and Wales.
Firstly, in Caparo Industries plc v Dickman [1990] 1 All ER 568, the House of Lords ruled that for a duty of care to exist outwith an existing precedent* harm to the claimant must be reasonably foreseeable
- there must be a relationship of ‘proximity’ between claimant and defendant, and
- it must be fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on the defendant
There clearly is ‘proximity’ in the crash.
The bigger problem is ‘reasonably foreseeable’. Is it foreseeable to a ‘reasonable person’ with no specialist knowledge that the driver would lose his livelihood six months after a car crash because DVLA feared the annual risk of epileptic attack may exceed 2% (despite no evidence it does, and the driver had been back at work for over three months).
Even if this is ‘reasonably foreseeable’, is it fair, just and reasonable to impose a duty of care on motorists to avoid putting vocational driving licence holders in a position where DVLA may take an adverse view of the theoretical risks of head injury several months after they have recovered from their injuries? I fear this may be a stretch too far.
The other case that comes to mind is The Wagon Mound (No. 1) [1961] AC 388, where it was determined that defendants were only liable for losses that were a foreseeable consequence of the breach of duty, or damage ‘similar in type’ to reasonably foreseeable losses.
If you injure someone badly enough to leave them permanently disabled to some extent, then it is a foreseeable consequence that that person may lose their livelihood. However, when you injure someone temporarily who subsequently recovers enough to go back to their job, is it a foreseeable consequence that several months later an official body may revoke the licence necessary for that livelihood based on a theoretical fear about medical fitness after the head injury?
Finally, though I can quote no authorities on this, it would also be argued that as the original poster had recovered enough to go back to work, they are capable of doing some jobs even if DVLA refuses to return their LGV entitlement. This seems likely to reduce any damages substantially - the person is incapable of one sector of work but not of all work.
As for getting another job, I have no experience at anything else, as I have been driving for the last 10+ years, and the fact my last employer has let me go due to medical reasons, ie:- at risk of epilepsy I will find it hard to get another job.