As for the concept of negligent per se, Passenger will not recover against Driver.

This doctrine implies plaintiff can recover from defendant according following
requirement: actor is negligent if, without excuse, the actor violates a statute that is
designed to protect against the type of accident the actors conduct causes, and if
the accident victim is within the class of persons the statute is designed to protect.
(Restatement (3d) of Torts). In our case, Driver violated the municipal statute
which prohibits parking within 10 feet of a fire hydrant. It is designed to help
firefighters to access freely to a fire hydrant but not to prevent car accidents.
Moreover, Passengers injuries are not the kind the statute was designed to protect
against. As we can see statements from the concept of negligent per se do not allow
Passenger recover against Driver.
Another way of looking at this question is to turn to Traditional Negligence. I think
passenger will recover against Trucker in Traditional Negligence as: 1) Trucker has
the duty to observe traffic rules; 2) Trucker breached this duty when swerved the
truck trying to avoid hitting a dog; 3) Trucker violated the traffic regulations and
his truck crashed into a car, where passenger was. The Truckers actions were the
actual and proximate cause of the Passengers injuries.
In my opinion, it is common situation that a series of careless actions become a
source of harm and injuries. Certainly we can find the Driver`s fault in this case.
However, we should notice Trucker`s fault as well. Saving the life of a dog is a
noble deed but human life is also quite worthwhile.