The Jones Act, 46 U.S.C. § 688 incorporates the doctrine of comparative negligence, under which recovery is reduced if the plaintiff is found to have been negligent and his negligence contributed to his injury. See, e.g., Rivera, 474 F.2d at 257. Such contributory negligence in a Jones Act case 'connotes some careless act or omission on the part of the employee over and above [mere] knowledgeable acceptance' of a risk. Id. The defendant must show more than that the seaman simply had knowledge of a hazard; it must show that the seaman 'failed to adopt safer alternative courses of action,' and the inquiry at trial should thus 'center on what choices were available to [the Plaintiff] and how he exercised those choices.' Akermanis v. Sea-Land Service, Inc., 688 F.2d 898, 904 n.2 (2d Cir. 1982).