Well no. In every personal injury action, which the law calls a "tort" you need four things before you are allowed to sue and to proceed.

1. A duty.

2. A breach of the duty.

3. Damages.

4. Your damages need to be proximately caused by the negligence of the "tortfeasor" the wrongdoer.

In your case you are simply missing 3 and 4. You have no damages and therefore no damages were proximately caused by the wrongdoer. Your personal injury is what the law refers to as de minimis. Lay people would use this definition and lawyers this one.

De minimis is a Latin expression meaning about minimal things, normally in the locutions de minimis non curat praetor ("The praetor does not concern himself with trifles") or de minimis non curat lex ("The law does not concern itself with trifles").[1][2]

In risk assessment it refers to a level of risk that is too small to be concerned with. Some refer to this as a "virtually safe" level.[3]

An abbreviated form of the Latin Maxim de minimis non curat lex, "the law cares not for small things." A legal doctrine by which a court refuses to consider trifling matters.

In a lawsuit, a court applies the de minimis doctrine to avoid the resolution of trivial matters that are not worthy of judicial scrutiny. Its application sometimes results in the dismissal of an action, particularly when the only redress sought is for a nominal sum, such as one dollar. Appellate courts also use the de minimis doctrine when appropriate.

But the personal injury aside you mention about wage loss caused by having a tough time keeping a job. It didn’t take me 30 years of practice to know it’s going to be extremely difficult to prove you’re not being able to find any truck driving job is somehow proximately caused by this one little accident. There must be more than you’re telling me; either that or you aren’t trying hard enough to find work.

Make sense?