Why not?

This is, sort of, already implemented where I live, in that the intoxicated driver is liable for loss of income, temporary or permanent, to any victims.

On the downside, judges tend to err under actual loss, and we don’t really have an effective “loss of enjoyment” concept. Such to say someone, who is injured but can continue to work at the same, wouldn’t be compensated for things like an injury precluding them from non-work damages; for example a skier victim who can no longer ski due to injuries