Damage suffered by consent is not a cause of action. When a person consents to the infliction of some harm upon himself he has no remedy for that in tort. Consent to suffer the harm may be express or implied.
For example-

1. You invite somebody to your house you cannot sue him for the trespass.
2. You can not sue a surgeon after giving the consent to perform certain act.
3. A going to on a highway he presume a risk of high accident.
   

For the defense to be available, the act causing the harm must not go beyond the limit of what he has been consented.
Thomas v.s quartermaine- court held that defendant was not liable because the danger was visible and the plaintiff appreciated and voluntarily encountered the same.
For example- A is drowning in a water pool. To rescue him B jumped into the water. While doing so B sustain some injuries. B cannot claim compensation from A, as he done this act voluntarily. Essential of Consent- The consent must be free from coercion, un due influence, fraud, and misrepresentation. If the consent influence by such characteristic then the plaintiff entitle for the damage.
Lakshmi Rajan v.s Malar Hospital ltd. the complaint A 40 years women noticed a development of a painful lump in her breast. But the hospital during operation also remove his uterus which has no connection whit hir lumps. The hospital is liable for deficiency of service. It was also held that the patients consent for the operation did not imply.

1. The injured knew that there was a risk in the act.
2. Knowingly there was a risk he invited it.

In wooldrige vs summer the court held that the plaintiff himself invited the risk of photography the horse. He is not entitle for any damages.

It is the responsibility of the owner of the place where every time risk of potential dangerous or it is hazardous area.
Smith vs Baker – court held that mere knowledge on the part of plaintiff was not sufficient. The defendant ought to have take due care and diligence.
Principle laid down- A person willingly undertake to do the work which is intrinsically dangerous notwithstanding that care has been taken to make it as little intrinsically dangerous as possible.
Dann v.s Hamilton- court rejected the defense of volenti fit non injuria- as the lady know the driver was under the effect of alcohol agreed to travel with him and the drive mat an accident.
Case reference-
Rylands v. Fletcher- Principle of strict liability- use of unnatural use of land which on the harm of other rights.