The court in that Hinson case said (and this is a very common articulation of the rule):
Violation of a safety statute constitutes negligence per se only where (1) the plaintiff is a member of the class sought to be protected by the statute, and (2) the resultant harm is of the type sought to be prevented by the passage of the statute. U-Haul Co. v. White, 232 So.2d 705 (Miss. 1970).
So, is it a safety statute? Yes.
Is the plaintiff a member of the class? Cars are required to have reflectors on the back but not the front -- so you can see it at night. That doesn't work if it's parked backwards. So, yes.
Is running into a car because it was parked backwards a harm this is supposed to prevent? Absolutely.
I'd say the count is three to zip at this point. Where's your case--hell, where's your theory of the case? You still haven't articulated any reason why there'd be some special exception here.