Trespass to the person is no longer a significant tort?

pls give me the tips or point ,how to answer this question?

There are about 5 different ways to answer this question. Without knowing the purpose of the question, it is difficult to answer. Is this for an undergrad class of some sort? If you are speaking of Trespass to the Case; it has changed into assault , battery, and other direct torts (not negligence). If you are in a UK country this answer does not apply

Rather depends on which legal system your answering it in. In the UK and probably the US as well, an action in negligence is usually preferred to an action in trespass to the person for reasons of practicality. Even if you think that the defendant intentionally injured the claimant, it may be difficult to prove. In an action in negligence you wouldn't have to go into the defendant's state of mind. The only point where you might need to use trespass instead of negligence is where you can't establish a duty of care towards the claimant.

Possibly the change is also due to changes in society - lots of litigation against corporate persons where it'd be impossible to prove the necessary intent for trespass - even if its ever there. Possibly the result of a more heavily policed society - so that trespass isn't significant to society as it is now. It does after all have it's roots in trespass vi et armis so it's not surprising that it's a little out of date.

Also note the changes in the attitudes of the courts - there was a time when courts would throw out actions if they felt the action ought to have been brought in a different form. Now the courts are more concerned with substance than form. So maybe its not trespass itself that's no longer significant, but the insistence on highly distinct causes of action.

Or maybe not.

Hope this is some help in answering the question.